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 Members: 82686
  • *Latest: zeikeafk

  • *Total Posts: 499870
  • *Total Topics: 14808
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 10
  • *Guests: 36
  • *Total: 46

Author Topic: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?  (Read 3297 times)

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« on: January 31, 2018, 04:19:25 AM »
    Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?

     With videos / photos 

     The idea in the diagram below,  is different ( how much ? ) to the videos on youtube  etc  .

     My aoplogies if this is already answered on any other thread,  I'm not aware of it.

     Below,  is my diagram of 3 generators on the same shaft,  completely  'Un-Aligned'  with each other so as to neutralize each others  cogging-torque( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque )

     This is in reference to a  self-powered device .

     Note - You obviously Don't  need any Permanent-Magnets  for this idea,   since it could just use electromagnets  -  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_(magnetic)  ,  and could either be started up by itself( residual magnetism ) or have to be flashed only initially ( jump started )  .

     (  I assume even non-symmetrical weights, or a flywheel can reduce or overcome the  cogging-torque  ,   or even  just running the motor/generators  at a high enough speed  )

     (  And also,  Faraday's later improved version of his generator( which greatly reduced  electromagnetic eddies ) would have no  cogging-torque,  but it needs to run at a very high rpm to generate any current,  maybe it could be driven by a  Faraday electric motor,  or by any electric motor  )
   
     people must be very bored by this etc,  however,  some people still claim overunity does not exist

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2018, 04:41:23 AM »
Let’s say we have an even number of ‘cogs’
And we shall assign a value to the cog force
Call it -X


the propulsion force that breaks the cog
is then subtracted from, by X


In the simplest form, the propulsion force is X
so X -X =0 (the case of field symmetry)
The motor has no torque.


If the propulsion is greater than X (call it Y)
Then the force produced by the motor is Y -X
(assymetrical field)


The opposite can also be true, if Y is less than X
and we have a machine that wastes a lot of input,
with no return.


Using electromagnetic force, as in a standard motor
We already do this, by using extra electricity to
neutralize the cog force.

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2018, 08:12:38 AM »
Let’s say we have an even number of ‘cogs’
And we shall assign a value to the cog force
Call it -X


the propulsion force that breaks the cog
is then subtracted from, by X


In the simplest form, the propulsion force is X
so X -X =0 (the case of field symmetry)
The motor has no torque.


If the propulsion is greater than X (call it Y)
Then the force produced by the motor is Y -X
(assymetrical field)


The opposite can also be true, if Y is less than X
and we have a machine that wastes a lot of input,
with no return.


Using electromagnetic force, as in a standard motor
We already do this, by using extra electricity to
neutralize the cog force.
Can you explain that in English please ? or with a drawing ?

Why on earth not use a simple wheel with North facing magnetic poles out with drive solenoid coils
in series that turn on at the 'push away, repulsion' time from the magnets and turn 'off' smart-ish so the 'attraction
pull back time 'lens law' does not slow the device down. simple.

Also don't forget to disconnect the out going supply at the appropriate time on the cycle as well. 
Don't forget Badini spent 30 years perfecting this technology so why not keep it simple ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2018, 08:12:38 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2018, 10:40:57 PM »
Hmm, it would be hard for me to explain physics without algebra


Even the basic form:  F=ma


But what the hell i’ll try




Force is equal to the mass times the acceleration


Net force is the sum of forces acting on the object


Equal and opposite forces cancel each other out


opposite but non equal forces, the sum is a non zero number
equal to the difference
That is: one force minus the other force


therefore: the primary force minus the cog force is the sum
or net force


———————————————————-


if you aim to get rid of the cog by timing
As in a pulse motor format


That is not really “neutralizing”
But a whole other issue entirely.




Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2018, 03:23:27 AM »
The Mueller generator had and odd magnet and even coil setup so that
the approaching attraction and the leaving hold back is all evened out.
That makes a more efficient generator but you still have the Lenz counter
to motion force that increases with output current.


If we could truely had a no Lenz generator then we would only pay for mechanical
motion. And that is why some folks have moved on to no movement generators
that vary the flux and thus induce a current like Thane Heins or Figuerra or Flynn
etc.

Norman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2018, 03:23:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2018, 10:57:59 AM »
The Mueller generator had and odd magnet and even coil setup so that
the approaching attraction and the leaving hold back is all evened out.
That makes a more efficient generator but you still have the Lenz counter
to motion force that increases with output current.


If we could truely had a no Lenz generator then we would only pay for mechanical
motion. And that is why some folks have moved on to no movement generators
that vary the flux and thus induce a current like Thane Heins or Figuerra or Flynn
etc.

Norman


Exactly.


That’s what I was trying to explain. Even number is a little
more straightforward, but it is synonymous to the way we
put a bigger engine in a car to overpower the friction of
it’s massive weight.


We aren’t really reducing our losses, but rather overcoming
the anteforce by using some of our power.


The solid-state situation may hold the key.
But we have to change our way of thinking.


For example:
If we gather the eddy current.
With the intent to use it in our circuit.
(not as simple to physically do, as it sounds)
But if we were to, what does that do to the input/output?

I believe this was what Tesla was thinking when he
split the sectors of the homopolar disk.






Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2018, 03:13:01 PM »
What we want in a generator is a no Lenz counter to motion generator because then we
can make all the watts we want for cheap/mechanical rotation only.

Or if we could get current/watts as a biproduct of something else we want for free.
examples
1. The Bedini school girl motor turns a fan which we want and simultaneously
   from the backemf higher than battery voltage we can also charge batteries for free.

2. We want several good sparks to ignite the fuel in the ICE. The model T did that with
  a buzz box but better than that is the Tesla auto ignition coil with a capacitor which
  recycles the backemf numerous times and effectively makes an extended spark to get
  a better burn and more power and less polution. The extended spark is all free
  after 1 coil charge.

Now if we could convert that into useable power we would have free power but as
we all know it would also disturb the resonate circuit and it would stop.

As of now I know of no one that has such a device that has been replicated and
correctly tested an OU device. If such a device existed it would be on sale everywhere.
And the best way to show that is to loop it back to itself.

Naudin did loop the bingo fuel back to the engine but no one has replicated that.
That behooves me....... why not?
I have a lot of respect for Naudin's impecable work. Then he went on to other things
and now has gone quiet.

I have made 2 OU devices but they do not have enough power to loop back
and power themselves nor cascade on to larger devices. It appears to me
that we need about 200% extra to handle the losses to reset the device so it
will repeat the cycle.

I do believe that Bessler did what they say he did and also Skinner but
they are of no use to us today because no one can replicate them.
So we have story after story and patent after patent and no valid replications.

Many claim replications but do not have valid measurements to back that
up.

If you know of a solid measured replication of OU 'd like to know about it.



Norman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2018, 03:13:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2018, 09:30:12 PM »


If you know of a solid measured replication of OU 'd like to know about it.



Norman

.

    It seems that you and sm0ky2 have confirmed that no ou device currently functions successfully .

    Although,  in the last week or so sm0ky2 indicated on the following post :
     http://overunity.com/17578/successfully-looped-smot/msg515857/#msg515857

      that he was about to replicate the successfully-lopped   SMOT  shown in the video at the start of that thread .
    That would have been useful to convince :
    Simon Derricutt  ,   in the comments,   on his following article(  I'm  'looped SMOT',  in that comments section ) :
    http://revolution-green.com/science-by-the-sceptics/
     has said that no    SMOT  has ever been successfully-lopped  .
____  ____  ____

    NOTE : - There is an interesting  and  very easy  'Solid-State device',   and,    a  'magnet-motor' type of device( that device should not function successfully ),    that I posted on my thread a few days ago :
    http://overunity.com/17588/a-list-of-easy-diy-self-powered-devices-some-can-power-a-home/new/#new

Quote
___  ___  ___

   Windings On A Donut-Shaped-Core( and small circuit )  Powering An LED bulb   
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u-i3wdESxE
          ( that youtube channel also has a device to recharge your phone by using a candle,  themo-electrics  )

___  ___  ___

    I Don't Know If The Following Functions !
         If you fasten a  large powerful donut-shaped-magnet  onto the surface of a table,    and then fasten a  sphere-magnet( so that the 2 magnets will repel each other ? ) onto the end of a string( and a keyring ?, so that it won't wind the string ),      apparently,     it will  keep rotating around  donut-shaped-magnet
          I got this idea from a comment on the following youtube video,  on that videos comments,  search for the text :    "like in nature!"       
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsb3xswaeIo

___  ___  ___
   

Offline norman6538

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2018, 12:28:41 AM »
Now if someone can replicate it then it is not a fake.
And indeed it does something that no one else had done
with a smot. BUT its like my pendulum and Finsrud - no power can
be taken out of either.

I'll say it again. I just wish I know what magnets really are.
We know their characteristics but not what they really are.
Leedskalnin had an in on understanding them. And we met
a man named Brian Prater that said he could punch a hole
in a magnet with a screwdriver if he put it at the right place.
We never saw that...and unfortunately he died last year.
He also had asbsurgers which might be why he could do that.

Lets keep going. Somebody will get it.

Norman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2018, 12:28:41 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 06:55:42 PM »
   
     Below,  is my diagram of 3 generators on the same shaft,  completely  'Un-Aligned'  with each other so as to neutralize each others  cogging-torque( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque )

     This is in reference to a  self-powered device .

     Note - You obviously Don't  need any Permanent-Magnets  for this idea,   since it could just use electromagnets  -  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_(magnetic)  ,  and could either be started up by itself( residual magnetism ) or have to be flashed only initially ( jump started )  .


      This extremely simple device could easily be built by using the motors(  as generators ) which are available for model-cars,  which actually have shafts on both ends of the motor,  and shaft connectors are available .

      - Obviously only DC motors should be used.

       However,  I just realized a very big problem,  if you wired it up too simply,  how would the device know which is the  motor  turning the device,  and which are the generators.

        Maybe you'd have to do things like , 
          -  removing commutators from the motors you want to be the generators( unlikely )
          -  adding diodes( or equivalents ) into the circuit
          -  AND EVEN MORE INTERESTINGLY,  what about feeding the input current to the motor( that is intended to be the motor )  via a totally    Contact-less( no contact connection )  like some sort of transformer or other contact-less induction connection.


    OR,  the alternative would simply be using magnets sweeping past coils to generate electricity instead of using motors as generators,  as described in the post below on another thread
http://overunity.com/17578/successfully-looped-smot/msg515755/#msg515755


However,  an alternative to the above description of  self-powered-motor-generators( where the generators have windings on iron-cores on their rotors, or vice versa ),    would be,   that the generators would simply be magnets on rotors sweeping past coils( on the outer radius ) to generate current  with  no-cogging-torque/load  to the motor,  and,  there’s also core-less( air-core ) generators( but I cannot see how they claim to have no cogging-torque )   


       However,  some people mention that electromagnetic-eddies can become a problem which can slow down a device,  but it is possible that these electromagnetic-eddies  may also provide propulsion to the device,      i.e.,    when a coil-core has swept past a  stator-permanent-magnet( or past a stator-electromagnet )

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2018, 02:04:39 AM »
      This extremely simple device could easily be built by using the motors(  as generators ) which are available for model-cars,  which actually have shafts on both ends of the motor,  and shaft connectors are available .

      - Obviously only DC motors should be used.

       However,  I just realized a very big problem,  if you wired it up too simply,  how would the device know which is the  motor  turning the device,  and which are the generators.

        Maybe you'd have to do things like , 
          -  removing commutators from the motors you want to be the generators( unlikely )
          -  adding diodes( or equivalents ) into the circuit
          -  AND EVEN MORE INTERESTINGLY,  what about feeding the input current to the motor( that is intended to be the motor )  via a totally    Contact-less( no contact connection )  like some sort of transformer or other contact-less induction connection.


    OR,  the alternative would simply be using magnets sweeping past coils to generate electricity instead of using motors as generators,  as described in the post below on another thread
http://overunity.com/17578/successfully-looped-smot/msg515755/#msg515755


    Another possible solution,  but I'm not sure,    would be to use an  AC-motor to rotate the  DC-motors being used as generators,  so that the  DC-output from the generators would go to a  power-inverter  which converts the DC-current into  AC-current for the AC-motor .

     Or,  maybe something like using a different phase or frequency for the driving motor,  than from what is used by the  motors-used-as-generators . 

    Also,  for the alternate idea,  of coils,  where magnets rotate along a coil placed on the perimeter of a circle, to generate current,    using horseshoe magnets generates much more current,  however,  even more power could be generated by replacing the  Permanent-magnets  with  electromagnets, since in this device they could become increasingly powerful,     this no  permanent-magnets principle is described on the following link : 
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_(magnetic)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2018, 02:04:39 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2018, 04:43:38 AM »
      This extremely simple device could easily be built by using the motors(  as generators ) which are available for model-cars,  which actually have shafts on both ends of the motor,  and shaft connectors are available .

      - Obviously only DC motors should be used.

       However,  I just realized a very big problem,  if you wired it up too simply,  how would the device know which is the  motor  turning the device,  and which are the generators.

        Maybe you'd have to do things like , 
          -  removing commutators from the motors you want to be the generators( unlikely )
          -  adding diodes( or equivalents ) into the circuit
          -  AND EVEN MORE INTERESTINGLY,  what about feeding the input current to the motor( that is intended to be the motor )  via a totally    Contact-less( no contact connection )  like some sort of transformer or other contact-less induction connection.


    OR,  the alternative would simply be using magnets sweeping past coils to generate electricity instead of using motors as generators,  as described in the post below on another thread
http://overunity.com/17578/successfully-looped-smot/msg515755/#msg515755


    The simplest solution to make this device function could be to :
     -  first,  power the  motor ( which is intended to rotate the generators ) by using an  'external power source'
     -  and then,  when the generators are generating power,   gradually mix the output of the generators with the current of the 'external power source',  and then gradually decrease the  'external power source',  until the device is self-powered

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2018, 02:59:29 AM »
This design,   should circumvent the problem of the electromagnetic-breaking effect encountered at high speeds by other designs,  because it only has to rotate at a very slow speed in order to match ( or greatly exceed ) the output of other designs when they spin at high speeds .

The design in the diagram,  on the very first post on this thread -

https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg515952/#msg515952

should circumvent the problem that people mention with their attempts at  'self-powered-motor-generators' , 
   -   they mention that when they try to speed the device up to a high enough speed for the device to power itself ( I don't understand that requirement ? ),  that they experience an increasing electromagnetic-breaking effect ( due to electromagnetic-eddies )  .

However,  in the design that this thread was started on,  above,  even when this device is rotating at a very slow speed,  it's output ( frequency ,  voltage, etc, etc ) would be equal to the output of other devices when they are rotating at a very high speed ,  but it should not experience that electromagnetic-breaking effect ( due to electromagnetic-eddies ) since the individual generators on the shaft would only be rotating at a slow speed .

Note  -  To very effectively neutralize cogging-torque  in  the design that this thread was started on,  above,  you you would need to have enough 'un-aligned' individual generators on the same shaft so that  'all'  cogging-torque gaps along the shaft are filled in very completely,  so that if the shaft is spun manually, that it would spin as smoothly as if there were no generators on the shaft .
----------------------

  It's odd people mentioning this problem of the electromagnetic-breaking effect ( due to electromagnetic-eddies )  in  'self-powered-motor-generators'   and any other devices for this website,   because  I have so often read of the dangerously high speeds that their devices ( including magnet-motors ) have reached,  that the centrifugal force caused the devices to fly apart .
----------------------

  One post on this thread,   mentioned a more simple non-symmetrical method of trying to neutralize cogging-torque,   that is by having an odd number of magnets and even number of coils in an individual generator,  for example - 2 magnets and 3 coils .
     When I used to look inside electric-motors years ago,  I remember that they were also designed on that principle, so it seems that that particular simple non-symmetrical method of trying to neutralize cogging-torque is not only used in overunity designs .
      - However,  I notice that often when you spin those motors by hand,  there is often still some significant cogging-torque .
       And that design( when used as a generator ) will still have the problem of the electromagnetic-breaking effect ( due to electromagnetic-eddies ),  unless,   you put many of these motors( generators ) on the same shaft,  and completely  'un-align' them in relation to each other,  just like in the the design in the diagram,  on the very first post on this thread,  although,  I don't know if or not that would have any problems functioning effectively .



Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2018, 06:20:56 AM »
The individual generators in the design that this thread was started on ( in the very first post ), were meant to contain the same number of coils-with-cores as rotating-magnets,  eg. 4 coils-with-cores powered by 4 rotating-magnets  .
        Obviously,  the less number of coils-with-cores and rotating-magnets,  then the greater the effect of  circumventing the problem of the electromagnetic-breaking effect encountered at high speeds by other designs .

    (  I don't know if they sell generators / motors that contain the same number of coils-with-cores as rotating-magnets )

     Below is a diagram showing a generator with the same number of coils-with-cores and rotating-magnets, even though it's not required .

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2018, 05:30:46 PM »
If anyone knows the original inventor of the design that this thread was started on ( in the very first post ),  and the year it was invented,  post that,  or of any device that is 'sufficiently'( s-u-f-f-i-c-i-e-n-t-l-y ) similar, post that
------------
In solid-state designs,  like the two currently active threads on here at the moment, I quickly lose interest when they use microchips,  or more than a small number of electronic components ,  since I sort of think if they could function, they should be able to without microchips and with very few electronic components .

   There's a concept I can't work out,  a simple solid-state design
     -  place numerous coils-with-cores in a circle, they are in no way connected with each other,  but are positioned so that they can induce power in the ones next to them, left and right
      -  and then only pulse one coil,  hoping that that pulse will travel around the circle( TO SELF-POWER THE DEVICE ),  but since the initial coil you have pulsed has induced the next coil on it's left and also on it's right,  then there will now be 2 pulses travelling around the circle, in opposite directions  .
      -  Those 2 pulses will prevent this device from being  self-powering .

      Maybe you could try cone-shaped-coils-containing-cone-shaped-iron-cores,  but would that solve the problem or function at all

   EDIT - Maybe ,  you could have the coils-with-cores in pairs ( with sufficient large spacing between pairs ),  in a pair,  one coil induces power in another coil,   then the power travels through a diode to the next pair .


 

OneLink