@Tinselkoala,

What's the difference between the beginning and end of a D.C. pulse and the end and beginning of an A.C. sine wave on either side of the zero line?

To answer your question.... in spite of your insults and general bad attitude.... the difference is the _time rate of change_ of the current. If you consider the same amplitude and frequency in both cases, a "DC" pulse will have very rapid rise and fall times as compared to a sine wave "AC". Hence, the induced voltage will be greater during the rise and fall times of the edges of the inducing DC pulse, than it will be during the rising and falling of the sine wave of similar amplitude. This is all contained in the statement and equation of Faraday's law of induction.

A monopole rotor will generate a D.C. wave that stays above the zero line.

No, it won't. A single polarity of the magnet, when approaching the coil, will have a positive time rate of change of the flux in the coil (Flux increases over time), and when it is receding the time rate of change is negative (flux decreases over time). This flips the sign of the induced voltage, again according to Faraday's law. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. (I just did it here, with the MHOP rotor which is "monopole", that is, has all N poles facing outward. See the scopeshot below. I spun the rotor by hand and had the scope probe connected across the drive coil. Each peak or cycle represents one magnet passing the coil. As the magnet approaches the centerline of the coil, the induced voltage increases to the positive peaks. As the magnet passes and recedes from the coil, the voltage decreases to the negative peaks (valleys).)

A signal generator can produce a D.C. square wave. My A.C. bifilar "Self resonant frequency ferrite rotor attraction motor" currently under discussion should generate a kind of A.C. square wave. Do you see any inductance advantage to that kind of signal compared to pulsed D.C.?

Your question isn't specific enough. Builders of resonant transformers (like Tesla coils) know that it is the _time rate of change_ of the primary pulse that is important in inducing high voltages in the secondary. The faster the _rise and fall times_ of the primary's pulse, the greater the induced voltage in the secondary. I suggest you copy out the Faraday's Law of Induction formula and meditate upon it. Since square pulses have faster rise and fall times than "AC sine waves" of the same frequency and amplitude, the square pulses will produce more voltage rise in the secondary.

A square wave can be "AC", that is, with zero crossings, or "DC" with only positive going (or negative going) "peaks". Technically, I suppose a "square wave" would be symmetrical about the zero baseline (that is, "AC") , and a "square pulse train" would be all positive (or all negative)... that is, a "square wave" with a DC offset of half-amplitude. Again, it is not so much the zero-crossing (AC vs. DC) that is important in producing induction effects, but the _rise and fall times_ of the pulse or wave edges. The _time rate of change_ of the inducing flux, signified by the d(B)/dt part of the Faraday's Law equation, is the important part, and as the sign of d(B)/dt changes (flux increases or decreases) the polarity of the induced EMF changes. This is why you can stimulate a transformer primary winding with a "DC" pulse train (all positive or negative) and get an "AC" response ( zero crossing) from the secondary.

In another thread I told how to find the resonant frequency of a coil by "striking" it with a single pulse of DC from a battery. The ringdown of the coil at the trailing edge of the supplied DC pulse is _AC_, and the frequency of this AC ringdown is the resonant frequency of the coil (and any associated capacitance forming a resonant tank circuit.) This is, in fact, a general way of determining the inductance of a coil, by pulsing it with a fast edge pulse (either AC or DC) and letting the coil ring when the pulse is removed, and then doing the math of the "resonant frequency equation" to which I have linked many times.

You like "Spiny" things, why not give my resonant bifilar air core attraction motor a whirl and find out with your community oscilliscope? This design may reveal the hidden Tesla bifilar amplification advantage I've predicted from the outset.

Spinny, not spiny. Sea urchins and cactuses are spiny, motor rotors are spinny. Why not do your own experimentation? You will learn much more that way. If you don't have an "oscilliscope" try to borrow one from your local university or ham radio operator. I think such things exist, even in Costa Rica.

I suffer from protective tariff rules while in exile down here in Costa Rica where it's very hard for me to procure the components I need. I wasn't raised with your uncanny midnight back alley trash foraging skills.

Are you telling me that you can't find a discarded or surplus CRT chassis, where someone has upgraded from CRT to flatscreen monitor for their TV or computer, to scavenge for magnet wire and other components? You don't have a few plastic jar lids that you can glue a few toy magnets to, for rotors? They don't sell threaded rod and machine nuts in your hardware stores down there? You don't even have any LEDs that you can connect to see polarity of pulses? 

Awwww.... my heart bleeds purple peanut butter for you.

synchro: you don' specify who Mr.Malicious is; since I mentioned several people, I won't speculate.

He could be a bot !?  ...anyway still waiting if anyone could answer my question including the famous ''bot'' let me know what our French buddy did wrong or calculated wrong !?

https://youtu.be/So4QwOktDFg

Asked, and answered several times already. He is not using appropriate equipment or procedures, he is making claims unsupported by actual evidence and he isn't performing actual true experiments. He continually confounds units of power and energy, he misuses the equipment he does have and he clearly doesn't understand his own setups.
Anybody can multiply two numbers together and get some answer that is _mathematically correct_. But if the numbers are garbage "data" to begin with, the result of the math is also meaningless garbage, even if it might be mathematically correct. And that is the case with Morin.

Asked, and answered several times already. He is not using appropriate equipment or procedures, he is making claims unsupported by actual evidence and he isn't performing actual true experiments. He continually confounds units of power and energy, he misuses the equipment he does have and he clearly doesn't understand his own setups.
Anybody can multiply two numbers together and get some answer that is _mathematically correct_. But if the numbers are garbage "data" to begin with, the result of the math is also meaningless garbage, even if it might be mathematically correct. And that is the case with Morin.

Hi !

Have not been here for I while, I clicked on the first thread (this one), watched the video, finally skipping to the last comments on this thread (to be honest).
I´ve never seen such a dog-and-pony show here before - and the only overunity here is the self-confidence of the demonstrator.
I can just underline every single statement of TK, just wondering why he is spending part of his lifetime commenting this.
Explaining all effects, misconceptions, errors, assumptions might take lots of hours - including basic fundamentals of all involved parts he is using.
To keep it simple - his lossy motor-generator setup transforms a DC voltage source (batteries) into somewhat high frequency AC current source (Generator has higher idle voltage, inductivity and source resistance).
In combination with lots of different nonlinear loads designed for different voltages and frequencies, using internal regulators (fluorescent ballast or LED drivers) - you can observe what happens.
I skipped all "measurements" and and calculations - because the setups and the used equipment is so wrong to get a clue what is going on here.
A simple test with a linear load resistor+calorimetry (so we can skip expensive RMS meters (does he know what that means ?)) and proper DC input power measurement would prove that there is nothing interesting going on here.
If I would do lectures at a technical college, I could use this video for an exam. "List all misconceptions, measurement errors, wrong assumptions". Would be perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydvic9aG5BE

"we call it now "the pump""
"because it is more energy than volts" 
"This transformer makes 65.000 (!!) volts - because its from a ozon thing and you need more than 50.000 volts to get ozone" yup. pure nonsense.
"This is a closed loop Geiger counter"
"26Amps" Maybe his Geiger counter is not used to something else than 60Hz ?
"The flow of electrons"

Another vid:
Teslas Secret Finally Understood


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ7I9XgaW3A


"its no longer ac current - its radio frequency" wow.

OMG.


Definitely experts in their field.

I have to admit I am undecided about Gerard.  I can't decide if he is really as dumb as he sounds or if he is just another scam artist.  Nothing he says makes any sense to me.  I worked in electronics on and off for over 50 years.  The last 30 years before I retired I was an industrial maintenance electrician working on all kinds of CNC equipment.  I am also a ham radio operator and fly RC airplanes so I think I know a little about electronics.

I did run into something interesting with the little pump motors Gerard was playing with.  Someone else tipped me off to them acting a little strange.  So I did some testing of my own.  If you remove the pump housing and the rotor you now have a nice coil assembly to play with that is a little unusual.  There are two coils with one coil on each leg of the stator laminations.  Very similar to the Ed Ledskilnin PMH.

After I built a test setup to test the coil assembly as a generator I got some interesting results.  I was using a razor scooter motor that has not been modified in any way.   I also have a crankshaft pulley from a Honda Accord as a flywheel. (This is actually for another test).  I have a rotor that has eight 1 inch ceramic magnets mounted in the rotor.  This is made in such a way that the magnets of the rotor can pass between the ends of the laminations of the pump motor coils.

I ran this test setup for about 15 minutes with no coils anywhere near the magnets.  I did this to let the bearings and motor warm up to get a good baseline current draw.  After the current had settled down I took a baseline reading with a digital meter and the current was 1.00 amps at a voltage of 12.44 volts going to the motor.  This gives a power calculation of about 12.44 watts for a no load condition.

When I added the pump motor coils to the test setup I got 9 volts from them going into a 50 ohm load.  At that time I did not have an extra digital ammeter so I calculated the current and the wattage and came up with 1.62 watts going into the 50 ohm load.

The interesting part is that the input current only went up by .1 amp for an increase in power in of 1.24 watts.  So if my measurements are correct then the pump motor coils are 130% efficient.  I am open to the idea that I made a mistake somewhere but if you think I did please show me where.  I have included a picture to show how the coils and rotor are working together.  Note that for the test I held the coils by hand as I have not taken time to make a good mounting system for the coils.

Also if you are looking for some of these coils most of them have a plastic housing on them which does not let you see the coils.  I was fortunate enough to find a couple of them without that housing so you can see exactly how the coils are wired and mounted.

Carroll

citfta
Quote

The interesting part is that the input current only went up by .1 amp for an increase in power in of 1.24 watts.  So if my measurements are correct then the pump motor coils are 130% efficient.

end quote
Sir
Do you have a schematic ?

apologies  if you have provided this already.

respectfully

Chet

Carroll
thank you for the response.
I am always asked for a schematic no matter how simple the circuit may seem, even a "napkin" schematic would be of great benefit
especially where you are taking measurements .

_apparent_ excess energy can be quite tricky and in "most" cases explained away.
it would be good to investigate this claim as effectively as possible and account for all energy in the System.

sometimes it can be the simple things that escape measurement [like heat and RF] for instance we were wasting heat or
sending out RF [unbeknownst] and then did something which stopped the waste and put it to work so it could then be measured
into our system adding to our COP measurement .

in these cases [OU COP Claims] all things must be measured and accounted for ,it also helps get the community
onto things which have more potential , I am not saying anything negative about your experience just adding some advice which has helped myself and others save countless wasted hours and resource.

respectfully

Chet