# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: postingsite on January 31, 2018, 04:19:25 AM

Title: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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  .

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
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: AlienGrey 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 ?
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: norman6538 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
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: norman6538 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
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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
( 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!"

___  ___  ___

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: norman6538 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
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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 )
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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)
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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 .

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 .

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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 .
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite 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 .

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite on July 29, 2018, 06:22:47 AM
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

Everyone realizes this could be as simple as two variable-rotary-resistors/potentiometers, connected together via two cog wheels,  so that when you increase one, you are also decreasing the other,  and their combined output going to the motor .
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite on August 04, 2018, 06:40:02 AM
I just thought of a reason why the design that this thread is based on,  the design in the diagram,  on the very first post on this thread,  may ( ? ) have a problem .
-   In this design,  when one  rotating-magnet  approaches a  coil-with-core, ,  that coil may already have current flowing through it,  because of current generated in other generators on the same shaft,  so because of that electromagnetic-field already emanating from the coils,  the device may experience  the  electromagnetic-braking-effect  problem experienced in other designs .
-  Maybe each separate generator on the shaft,  could transmit it's power via an induction method,  but usually induction also works both ways .
-  Maybe diodes would be a solution .

I don't if this device would have the problem detailed above
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2018, 05:18:46 AM
Magnetic cogging neutralization.

This generator will put out between 1600-1800 watts. My bigger machine will put out between 1800-2000 watts. Input to this machine, run by an MY1020 rewound razor scooter motor is less than 300 watts. Of that 300 watts, the 3 Battery circuit that no one believes works can recover about 70%.

There are several keys to success. First, build the generator EXACTLY as I have described. All magnetic cogging is neutralized. There is a patent for this that is over a 150 years old, so it is in the public domain already. Second, wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires. That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm. This means the rewound motor must run on 24 volts to achieve the proper rpm.  Thats it. You can run it with a stock motor if you want. You just won't be able to recover much of the input energy. Still, the COP is pretty high.

When I would put 12 coils in my big machine I used to have to put a 12" crescent wrench on each end, and it took two people to turn it 1/6 of the rotation from one magnetic lock position to the next. Now, with all the magnets adjusted, I can spin the rotor by hand past the coils.

The only issue now is HEAT. The constant change of flux in the iron generates heat, and if you run the generator for more than an hour, you will melt the insulation off the wires in the coils and now you have close to \$900 worth of paperweights. Been there. Done that more than once before I learned. I have some other coil cores I am testing on my coil tester, but won't have any info for at least a few months. In the process of moving right now. THIS IS A PROOF OF CONCEPT MACHINE ONLY not a prototype. There are half a dozen things I have learned that are not in this video that I now incorporate into the machine. I would suggest building a small machine with only a couple coils, one on each side of a rotor, and then the opposing magnets. It will prove to you whether I am full of crap or not. But really, this is NOT rocket science.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite on August 08, 2018, 05:41:50 AM
I know you're only demonstrating cogging-torque neutralization, and surplus output,  both impressive

Has it ever been self-running  ?
- preferably without batteries,
-  no connection to mains
-  any capacitors or batteries should hold no charge at all,   at the start,

-  Apparently batteries almost always have some charge left,  so batteries are not preferable for  a proof-of-concept  self-running  device  .

I keep on reading debunkers explanations for higher outputs than inputs,  so the only way it could not be debunked would be to be self-running ,  it's the only thing that counts  .
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2018, 06:58:18 AM
I'm not claiming a self runner unless I have self run it on my bench. I have NOT. I'm in the process of moving so I have no time for at least a couple months to even unpack my stuff which is all in boxes. The video was made a couple months ago.

I ONLY posted because of the interest in neutralizing magnetic cogging. It should be OBVIOUS that this machine does that. Plus there is a patent from over 150 years ago that applies the same principle. The patent had: coil (in attraction) rotor then magnet (in repulsion). I didn't LIKE that arrangement because all the forces exerted on the rotor were in the same direction. Pulling it from one side and pushing it away from the other. That would really exert unnecessary torque on the rotor. In MY design there are coils on BOTH sides of the rotor in attraction and magnets on BOTH sides of the rotor in repulsion at the same time. Forces are equalized. When I have time to prove inputs and outputs on my generator, I will do that. Until then, please consider ONLY what I have shared about the elimination of magnetic cogging. Any reasonable individual should be able to see the benefit of THAT. The rest you can consider pie in the sky until proven.

Matt Jones over on Energetic Forum is building a SMALL version of the generator, only two coils, to see if one that small has a COP>1. I'll post the results here whether they are positive or negative. There will be video and measurements.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 08, 2018, 04:27:28 PM

Quote
This generator will put out between 1600-1800 watts. My bigger machine will put out between 1800-2000 watts. Input to this machine, run by an MY1020 rewound razor scooter motor is less than 300 watts. Of that 300 watts, the 3 Battery circuit that no one believes works can recover about 70%.

So to be clear--
Output minimum is 1600 watts
Input using the Matt wound motor is 300 watt's max.
If we use the 3BGS ,we can reduce that 300 watt input by 70%,and so our total input becomes just 90 watts.
So 90 watts in,and 1600 watts out,for a COP of 1777%

Quote
Second, wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires.

Ah yes,i knew Tesla would have to come into it sooner or later  ::)

Quote
That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm.

Any coil when loaded will speed up under load if the RPMs are correct.
What you fail to understand is !why! you get the speed up under load effect,even though you answer the question your self a little further down the page.

Quote
The only issue now is HEAT. The constant change of flux in the iron generates heat,

And there you go--the reason for !speed up under load!
Lets see--
-->No load on the coil,no current flowing through the coil,means no magnetic field produced by the coil that is of the same polarity as the magnet approaching it. Flux through the core of the coil is of the !!opposite!! polarity to that of the approaching magnet-eddy current heat high
-->load across the coil,current flowing through the coil,means a magnetic field produced by the coil that is of the !!same!! polarity of that of the approaching magnet-eddy current heat low
Wonder why you have the speed up under load effect?  ::)

Quote
You can run it with a stock motor if you want. You just won't be able to recover much of the input energy. Still, the COP is pretty high.

Well as we all know,the stock motor is far more efficient than the Matt wound bathroom heater--i mean motor ;D,but lets say the stock motor uses twice as much power as the !Matt! motor at 600 watts. The generator puts out a minimum of 1600 watts,so we should have 1000 watts to spare--correct?

Quote
and if you run the generator for more than an hour, you will melt the insulation off the wires in the coils and now you have close to \$900 worth of paperweights.

Hang on a minute  :o
Quote:  12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires
So each of the 3 wires is made from 4 lots of 23 gauge wire-being American,i would say 23 AWG-correct?.
The maximum current value for this gauge wire in this situation is 4.7 amps,and there is 4 strands to each of the 3 in total wires,which gives a current value total of 18.8 amps for each of the 3 litz wires. This means that each coil can handle 56 amps of current.
To get 1600 watts at 56 amps,your output voltage is only 28.57V/RMS  ???
Hmmmm--sum-ting-wong

Quote
This means the rewound motor must run on 24 volts to achieve the proper rpm.  Thats it.

Hey  ???
Hang on a minute here
Quote: First, build the generator EXACTLY as I have described.Wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires.That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm
The !Matt! motor needs 24 volts to run at 2200RPM?
Your mate Matt said his modded motor ran at 4500RPM at 12 volts
Your video states within the first 12 seconds that the generator will speed up under load,and has no !!magnetic drag!!--so why the hell is the motor needing 24 volts to reach 2200 RPM?
Sum-ting-else-wong.

Quote
I would suggest building a small machine with only a couple coils, one on each side of a rotor, and then the opposing magnets. It will prove to you whether I am full of crap or not.

Get the buckets and shovel.

Quote
But really, this is NOT rocket science.

You got that right--rocket science is easy.
It's just the ejection of mass at velocity.
Your science makes no sense at all.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2018, 05:32:27 PM
Tin Man,
Either the concept I have shown for reduction of magnetic lock works or it does not. I have built several very expensive machines that show me it works. If you choose not to use the concept, that's your choice. That is all I wanted to share. The rest we can argue about when I have a machine running and can post video of inputs and outputs. I have several versions and they are all different, so the numbers are different, and without my notebooks, which are in storage, I could easily confuse different numbers from different machines. To me, reducing the amp draw of the motor unloaded from over 30 amps to less than 12 for my big machine was a major breakthrough, and THOSE are the numbers that stick in my head. But my big machine has 12 coils and 6 rotor magnets so the six magnets are ALWAYS locked on coils and you are ALWAYS trying to break the attraction of all six magnets at once. The smaller machine that I recommended probably has way less amp draw. Why is there any amp draw? Probably because there is STILL some magnetic cogging. But since I can now run the motor without burning it up and generate power with the generator, to me that is as cog free as I am likely to get mechanically, and is incredibly significant. Sorry you do not find this information valuable and would rather nit pick my numbers when I have ALREADY stated that I would rather wait until the thing is running on my bench again to even discuss inputs and outputs. When it is, I will be happy to run every single test YOU PERSONALLY would like to have run. Is that a deal? oh, and i won't talk about it until then either, if that makes you happy. One last thing. Any time I talk about this machine, it was running on a stock motor. In the beginning I was using the modified motor, but I kept burning up motors because of amp draw, and it was really frustrating to get a motor, take it apart and rewind it, and then burn it up a day or so later. So I have been using stock motors for quite a while and have burnt up MANY of them also. It doesn't hurt quite as bad, but it still hurts. It's just that I have done MANY experiments with Matt's motor, and I know what can be recovered, so I apply that information in my discussions even though I am NOT currently using the motor. Remember, I DID in the beginning and that is where I get my recovery data.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2018, 01:27:32 AM
Tin Man,
Either the concept I have shown for reduction of magnetic lock works or it does not. I have built several very expensive machines that show me it works. If you choose not to use the concept, that's your choice. That is all I wanted to share. The rest we can argue about when I have a machine running and can post video of inputs and outputs. I have several versions and they are all different, so the numbers are different, and without my notebooks, which are in storage, I could easily confuse different numbers from different machines. To me, reducing the amp draw of the motor unloaded from over 30 amps to less than 12 for my big machine was a major breakthrough, and THOSE are the numbers that stick in my head. But my big machine has 12 coils and 6 rotor magnets so the six magnets are ALWAYS locked on coils and you are ALWAYS trying to break the attraction of all six magnets at once. The smaller machine that I recommended probably has way less amp draw. Why is there any amp draw? Probably because there is STILL some magnetic cogging. But since I can now run the motor without burning it up and generate power with the generator, to me that is as cog free as I am likely to get mechanically, and is incredibly significant. Sorry you do not find this information valuable and would rather nit pick my numbers when I have ALREADY stated that I would rather wait until the thing is running on my bench again to even discuss inputs and outputs. When it is, I will be happy to run every single test YOU PERSONALLY would like to have run. Is that a deal? oh, and i won't talk about it until then either, if that makes you happy. One last thing. Any time I talk about this machine, it was running on a stock motor. In the beginning I was using the modified motor, but I kept burning up motors because of amp draw, and it was really frustrating to get a motor, take it apart and rewind it, and then burn it up a day or so later. So I have been using stock motors for quite a while and have burnt up MANY of them also. It doesn't hurt quite as bad, but it still hurts. It's just that I have done MANY experiments with Matt's motor, and I know what can be recovered, so I apply that information in my discussions even though I am NOT currently using the motor. Remember, I DID in the beginning and that is where I get my recovery data.

You have a deal there Dave for sure.

And yes,reducing magnetic cogging is a clear advantage in any machine of this type,as energy is lost through vibration. If you remove this loss,then you gain that loss in output.

I do believe there is a gain to be had when transferring energy from point A to point B,and have that energy do useful work on it's journey--no argument there.
But what im interested in is this 300 watts in--1600 watts out  ;)

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2018, 04:24:04 AM
300 watts in and 1600 watts out... but still can't sustain self-running?

Somebody needs to hire a consultant.    :'(

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on August 09, 2018, 06:02:42 AM
TinselKoala,
I never stated that the machine could not sustain self running. I stated that I have never TRIED. I was always focused on four things
1. Reduced amp draw of the motor from generator coils that speed the motor up under load
2. Increased production of the generator when the motor DOES speed up under load
3. Watts into the motor
4. Watts out to the load from the generator.

My assumption was that if all those factors got to where I wanted them, a self runner was inevitable.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2018, 08:38:56 AM
TinselKoala,
I never stated that the machine could not sustain self running. I stated that I have never TRIED. I was always focused on four things
1. Reduced amp draw of the motor from generator coils that speed the motor up under load
2. Increased production of the generator when the motor DOES speed up under load
3. Watts into the motor
4. Watts out to the load from the generator.

My assumption was that if all those factors got to where I wanted them, a self runner was inevitable.
1. If you truly can obtain 1600 watts output for 300 watts input, it is trivial "for those skilled in the art" to connect one end to the other and have a self-runner.
2. If you can't figure out how to do it, I can tell you.... for a fee. But of course your output >> input claims must be true for it to work. You had those numbers, but you "never tried"? What's wrong with you?
3. I don't care about anything except your claim of watts out >> watts in.
4. I'll wager you a cheezburger that you cannot support this claim with a factual demonstration.
Your assumption is just that -- an assumption.  Let's see your FACTS.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: ramset on August 09, 2018, 09:19:23 AM
and I'll bet you a cheeseburger ,if I walked up to any man woman or child on the planetand asked them if they were ok with a device that turns 300 into 1600 but doesn't self run...
they wouldn't give a rats pajamas
probably would have the same answer for a device that turns 300 into 301

of course if I wanted all that attention you are always talking about the bad kind ??? ? the kind where they take it from you to make world ending wars...........a big self running show might not be .......................wise

Dave  has agreed to Let Brad test anyway he wants.
I doubt very much that cheeseburger bets are needed on top of Brads test protocols.
but who knows

maybe Dave likes Cheeseburgers ??
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2018, 09:55:04 AM
Do you like jam on your cheezburgers? As in, Jam Yesterday... Jam Tomorrow... but No Jam Today.

You talk like there is infinite time ahead of us... but there isn't.

"I made a thing that makes five times as much electrical power out than it takes to run it. Unfortunately I didn't think about connecting it as a self runner, and then I took it apart, so I can't show it to you now. And I'm doing something more important right now, so you'll have to wait three months before I can rebuild it."

It's right there in the script.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: gyulasun on August 09, 2018, 11:14:42 AM
...

I ONLY posted because of the interest in neutralizing magnetic cogging. It should be OBVIOUS that this machine does that.  Plus there is a patent from over 150 years ago that applies the same principle. The patent had: coil (in attraction) rotor then magnet (in repulsion). I didn't LIKE that arrangement because all the forces exerted on the rotor were in the same direction. Pulling it from one side and pushing it away from the other. That would really exert unnecessary torque on the rotor. In MY design there are coils on BOTH sides of the rotor in attraction and magnets on BOTH sides of the rotor in repulsion at the same time. Forces are equalized.
....

Hi Dave,
Would you mind telling the old patent number you referred to above?
Thanks,
Gyula
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
Dave

I am a little confused as to why the motors burn out if they only need 300 watts to drive the generator,and where you point out that a stock motor can be used.
The MY1020 comes in a variety of sizes,from 250 watts/24v up to 1000 watts/48v.
The  !MY1020! stands for the mounting type on the motor,it is not to stipulate a power rating for the motor. The ZY1020 is the same motor,but where the mounting points are different.

So could you clarify as to what !size! motors you guys are using?.
If you keep burning out motors at 300 watts,then why not use the MY1020 500 watt-24 volt model ?. This is the motor i have ordered--the 500 watt MY1020.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2018, 02:52:30 PM
Do you like jam on your cheezburgers? As in, Jam Yesterday... Jam Tomorrow... but No Jam Today.

You talk like there is infinite time ahead of us... but there isn't.

"I made a thing that makes five times as much electrical power out than it takes to run it. Unfortunately I didn't think about connecting it as a self runner, and then I took it apart, so I can't show it to you now. And I'm doing something more important right now, so you'll have to wait three months before I can rebuild it."

It's right there in the script.

For a COP of 533%,im happy to wait.
This will give me time to get one of Daves gens together.

He is shifting house and shop--i know what thats like when you have as much junk as i do.

The test procedure will be very simple and fool proof.
!st series of tests-->

1st,the motor with rotor is run by it self(no generator attached) from a stable DC source.
RPM and P/in is taken.

2nd-The motor and rotor are placed within the generator,but no load on the outputs of the generator.
RPM and P/in are taken again.

3rd-a 10 ohm load is placed across each gen coil.
RPM and P/in are taken again,along with the v/RMS value across each 10 ohm load.
High quality true RMS DMMs or a scope can be used to get these values.

Should the outcome seem fruitful,then we move onto the very simple looped system.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2018, 03:06:05 PM
For a COP of 533%,im happy to wait.
This will give me time to get one of Daves gens together.

He is shifting house and shop--i know what thats like when you have as much junk as i do.

The test procedure will be very simple and fool proof.
!st series of tests-->

1st,the motor with rotor is run by it self(no generator attached) from a stable DC source.
RPM and P/in is taken.

2nd-The motor and rotor are placed within the generator,but no load on the outputs of the generator.
RPM and P/in are taken again.

3rd-a 10 ohm load is placed across each gen coil.
RPM and P/in are taken again,along with the v/RMS value across each 10 ohm load.
High quality true RMS DMMs or a scope can be used to get these values.

Should the outcome seem fruitful,then we move onto the very simple looped system.

That's good, and I trust you to run a full and comprehensive series of tests.

BUT... I still think that the _first_ thing we should want to see is Dave's own device and his own setup and measurement technique that gave him the 300 watt input vs. 1600 watt output values. If he himself can't actually support that claim with apparatus he built and with proper tests he performs himself in his own reconstructed shop ... what reason would there be to go any further?
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2018, 03:27:42 PM
That's good, and I trust you to run a full and comprehensive series of tests.

BUT... I still think that the _first_ thing we should want to see is Dave's own device and his own setup and measurement technique that gave him the 300 watt input vs. 1600 watt output values. If he himself can't actually support that claim with apparatus he built and with proper tests he performs himself in his own reconstructed shop ... what reason would there be to go any further?

Those tests were for Daves device--not mine.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2018, 04:42:33 PM
Those tests were for Daves device--not mine.
Oh, I see, that's even better then. So you'll be supervising Dave's testing of his own device, over Skype or something like that? That's an excellent way to proceed.

I wish everyone good luck, and I hope the Test Day isn't too far off.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on August 09, 2018, 06:03:20 PM
tinman,

OK, let me start from the beginning...
The original build of this generator was by Matt Jones. He took a stock motor pulsed by a 555 timer, a rotor with either two or 4 of the two inch neos on a rotor and two high impedance coils. He got speed up under load and output that was slightly in excess of input. We understood that if we ran it on the 3 Battery circuit and could recover some of the input, there was really something to this, so I replicated it, got the same results, and because I don't know any better, I started working on a big machine with 12 coils. I had six big 2" neos on the rotor, and a coil on each side of each magnet. With only a couple coils in the machine, it did what I wanted, and I was very excited. I could probably find the videos of some of those early tests somewhere, but that's beside the point. As I added MORE coils, the increased magnetic drag of the magnets past additional iron cores and caused too much amp draw through the motor. Because I was a school principal, (and an English teacher for crying out loud) and don't have an education in electronics, it did not occur to me what the issue was, and it took me a while to figure it out. So I burnt up a few motors. When I FINALLY DID figure out what the problem was, I started looking at ways to eliminate or neutralize the magnetic cogging. Many MORE motors bit the dust as I experimented with different (failed) methods of solving the problem. These were all MY1016 motors. I even finally went to the MY1020 hoping that a larger motor could stand the additional amp draw, but alas, it was not to be. With six coils on the motor the amp draw required to turn the rotor was enough to draw enough amps through the motor that heat became a serious issue that could melt the insulation off the coils. I have a box full of wire from ruined coils as evidence if you are interested. I have wound new coils either three or four times, and it is over \$700 to wind a set of coils plus the time it takes. And I have a LOT of burnt up motors from before I figured out a way to neutralize the magnetic cogging.

I began researching to see if I could find a solution to magnetic cogging, and I kept on experimenting. Finally something WORKED, and then I ran across an old patent that showed that if each time a rotor magnet approached a coil core to which it would be ATTRACTED, if it ALSO approached a magnet in repulsion, you could neutralize the tendency of the magnet to lock on the core, and reduce the cogging. It supported the idea I was working with. That patent had the coil on one side of the rotor and a magnet on the other side at the same time. I didn't like this arrangement because it meant the rotor was being pulled in one direction by the iron in the core and PUSHED in that same direction by the magnet in repulsion and with HUGE neos, it caused wobble in the rotor and caused a need for increases in tolerances. So after a couple different builds I figured out that If I had one set of magnets that went between the coils and a SECOND set of magnets out on the rim of the rotor that went between magnets in opposition, I could get magnetic neutralization. That is what I did on my BIG machine that has 12 coils and six neos on it for generating and another six magnets on the rotor and twelve more on the stator (one on each side of the rotor magnet) in repulsion. That is the machine that I experimented with the MOST and have actual data and numbers from. THAT rotor has some WEIGHT with all those magnets in it, especially when you consider that the rotor is actually TWO rotors, with magnets on BOTHE SIDES of a thin piece of plastic. The magnets are attracted to each other through the thin plastic so they do NOT come out of the rotor once they are in, not even at high speed. I also have videos showing the inputs and the outputs, but only with a couple coils at the early stages, and that is NOT the machine I focused on in the video.

Eventually I figured out a CHEAPER way to construct the machine that does not put out as much power as the 12 coil machine, but costs far LESS to build because it doesn't require all the magnets. That is the 10 coils machine I showed in the video. I simplified the design.But although I have run it to TEST THE DESIGN as far as magnetic cogging goes, I have NOT tested the output of that machine. My numbers are based on the fact that it is using the SAME magnets on the SAME sized rotor being turned by the SAME motor using the SAME coils. And I know what an individual coil produces, so I can multiply that by the number of coils. Although, since the rotor weighs far LESS the rpm may be significantly higher meaning more production. I really haven't had time to experiment with the new, smaller machine.

That I do not have the time to go through boxes to find all the parts to put these machines back together is unfortunate but far from bull. I had just torn the front porch off my house as well as the back deck, assuming I had lots of time to work on the remodel and could work on one in the morning and the other in the afternoon when the sun has shifted, when my wife found the house of her dreams. Before we can move in it has to have the fence replaced, the roof replaced, the deck replaced and the kitchen remodeled and I want cabinets and benches built in my shop. That may sound like a lot of work for a "dream house, but you should see the view. To finance it we are selling the property we bought to build a retirement home as well as the "fixer upper" we bought to live in while we BUILT the retirement home. The current fixer upper house has to have the front porch replaced, the back deck rebuilt, the popcorn ceilings scraped, textured and repainted, the carpet replaced, and two bathrooms remodeled before we can put it up for sale. Until that happens and it is sold, we are making two house payments. What would be YOUR priority. I am working 16 hour days to try and get all this crap done and I am 64 years old, so when I quit working for the day, I QUIT WORKING FOR THE DAY. All the stuff for the generators is in boxes for the move and I really have NO PLACE to assemble it even if it wasn't. That's the truth. I have pictures if you want to see them.

I had NO INTENTION of putting this generator in the public domain. My intention was to patent it and go into production. When I realized it would probably be MONTHS before I could get back to it, I decided to share. I did, on Energetic Forum. There are a couple folks who are already building it, so if they get it done before I get back to this, you will probably see their work at some point. I believe this machine to be of great value. Time will tell. I will be happy to do the testing when I CAN. But selling this house HAS to be a priority. I DID NOT POST HERE to discuss the generator, ONLY to offer a simple solution to magnetic cogging and this has all been blown our of proportion. I have DONE that. Take it or leave it.

The Tesla patent is 512,340 which is his pancake coil patent. If you read it carefully, you will see he is talking about building coils with increased capacitance that delays lenz long enough that it actually ASSISTS in the rotation of the rotor, because at the CORRECT RPM, the generator coil fills at the right time to create an electromagnet that DOESN't repel the approaching magnet, but has delayed long enough that the magnet has passed TDC, and instead PUSHES IT AWAY. This can also be done by attaching a small capacitor to the coil in parallel.

As to the other patent, on magnetic repulsion, I KNOW I have it somewhere, but I cannot find it. When I do, I will post it.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2018, 07:42:31 AM
tinman,

OK, let me start from the beginning...
The original build of this generator was by Matt Jones. He took a stock motor pulsed by a 555 timer, a rotor with either two or 4 of the two inch neos on a rotor and two high impedance coils. He got speed up under load and output that was slightly in excess of input. We understood that if we ran it on the 3 Battery circuit and could recover some of the input, there was really something to this, so I replicated it, got the same results, and because I don't know any better, I started working on a big machine with 12 coils. I had six big 2" neos on the rotor, and a coil on each side of each magnet. With only a couple coils in the machine, it did what I wanted, and I was very excited. I could probably find the videos of some of those early tests somewhere, but that's beside the point. As I added MORE coils, the increased magnetic drag of the magnets past additional iron cores and caused too much amp draw through the motor. Because I was a school principal, (and an English teacher for crying out loud) and don't have an education in electronics, it did not occur to me what the issue was, and it took me a while to figure it out. So I burnt up a few motors. When I FINALLY DID figure out what the problem was, I started looking at ways to eliminate or neutralize the magnetic cogging. Many MORE motors bit the dust as I experimented with different (failed) methods of solving the problem. These were all MY1016 motors. I even finally went to the MY1020 hoping that a larger motor could stand the additional amp draw, but alas, it was not to be. With six coils on the motor the amp draw required to turn the rotor was enough to draw enough amps through the motor that heat became a serious issue that could melt the insulation off the coils. I have a box full of wire from ruined coils as evidence if you are interested. I have wound new coils either three or four times, and it is over \$700 to wind a set of coils plus the time it takes. And I have a LOT of burnt up motors from before I figured out a way to neutralize the magnetic cogging.

I began researching to see if I could find a solution to magnetic cogging, and I kept on experimenting. Finally something WORKED, and then I ran across an old patent that showed that if each time a rotor magnet approached a coil core to which it would be ATTRACTED, if it ALSO approached a magnet in repulsion, you could neutralize the tendency of the magnet to lock on the core, and reduce the cogging. It supported the idea I was working with. That patent had the coil on one side of the rotor and a magnet on the other side at the same time. I didn't like this arrangement because it meant the rotor was being pulled in one direction by the iron in the core and PUSHED in that same direction by the magnet in repulsion and with HUGE neos, it caused wobble in the rotor and caused a need for increases in tolerances. So after a couple different builds I figured out that If I had one set of magnets that went between the coils and a SECOND set of magnets out on the rim of the rotor that went between magnets in opposition, I could get magnetic neutralization. That is what I did on my BIG machine that has 12 coils and six neos on it for generating and another six magnets on the rotor and twelve more on the stator (one on each side of the rotor magnet) in repulsion. That is the machine that I experimented with the MOST and have actual data and numbers from. THAT rotor has some WEIGHT with all those magnets in it, especially when you consider that the rotor is actually TWO rotors, with magnets on BOTHE SIDES of a thin piece of plastic. The magnets are attracted to each other through the thin plastic so they do NOT come out of the rotor once they are in, not even at high speed. I also have videos showing the inputs and the outputs, but only with a couple coils at the early stages, and that is NOT the machine I focused on in the video.

Eventually I figured out a CHEAPER way to construct the machine that does not put out as much power as the 12 coil machine, but costs far LESS to build because it doesn't require all the magnets. That is the 10 coils machine I showed in the video. I simplified the design.But although I have run it to TEST THE DESIGN as far as magnetic cogging goes, I have NOT tested the output of that machine. My numbers are based on the fact that it is using the SAME magnets on the SAME sized rotor being turned by the SAME motor using the SAME coils. And I know what an individual coil produces, so I can multiply that by the number of coils. Although, since the rotor weighs far LESS the rpm may be significantly higher meaning more production. I really haven't had time to experiment with the new, smaller machine.

That I do not have the time to go through boxes to find all the parts to put these machines back together is unfortunate but far from bull. I had just torn the front porch off my house as well as the back deck, assuming I had lots of time to work on the remodel and could work on one in the morning and the other in the afternoon when the sun has shifted, when my wife found the house of her dreams. Before we can move in it has to have the fence replaced, the roof replaced, the deck replaced and the kitchen remodeled and I want cabinets and benches built in my shop. That may sound like a lot of work for a "dream house, but you should see the view. To finance it we are selling the property we bought to build a retirement home as well as the "fixer upper" we bought to live in while we BUILT the retirement home. The current fixer upper house has to have the front porch replaced, the back deck rebuilt, the popcorn ceilings scraped, textured and repainted, the carpet replaced, and two bathrooms remodeled before we can put it up for sale. Until that happens and it is sold, we are making two house payments. What would be YOUR priority. I am working 16 hour days to try and get all this crap done and I am 64 years old, so when I quit working for the day, I QUIT WORKING FOR THE DAY. All the stuff for the generators is in boxes for the move and I really have NO PLACE to assemble it even if it wasn't. That's the truth. I have pictures if you want to see them.

I had NO INTENTION of putting this generator in the public domain. My intention was to patent it and go into production. When I realized it would probably be MONTHS before I could get back to it, I decided to share. I did, on Energetic Forum. There are a couple folks who are already building it, so if they get it done before I get back to this, you will probably see their work at some point. I believe this machine to be of great value. Time will tell. I will be happy to do the testing when I CAN. But selling this house HAS to be a priority. I DID NOT POST HERE to discuss the generator, ONLY to offer a simple solution to magnetic cogging and this has all been blown our of proportion. I have DONE that. Take it or leave it.

The Tesla patent is 512,340 which is his pancake coil patent. If you read it carefully, you will see he is talking about building coils with increased capacitance that delays lenz long enough that it actually ASSISTS in the rotation of the rotor, because at the CORRECT RPM, the generator coil fills at the right time to create an electromagnet that DOESN't repel the approaching magnet, but has delayed long enough that the magnet has passed TDC, and instead PUSHES IT AWAY. This can also be done by attaching a small capacitor to the coil in parallel.

As to the other patent, on magnetic repulsion, I KNOW I have it somewhere, but I cannot find it. When I do, I will post it.

Dave

Thanks for taking the time to explain everything.

I hear and understand your current position,as a couple of years ago,i too was juggling 2 houses and a farm,and all projects were on hold for a couple of months.

As you know,some time back here on this forum,i spent a lot of money (well,a lot for me) to put together the 3 battery system to your specs. I never even came close to what you said i should get. But not to worry,as all those batteries,motor,and inverter are all used today-so no real loss,and we gave it a go.

I do have great respect for you,but your friend Matt needs to give a little more respect to people-especially bistander,who did nothing but ask valid questions--he didnt deserve what Matt dished out to him. Im sure you understand that when claims like yours and Matts are made,people are going to ask questions such as those asked by bistander.

I would love to build your big gen-i even have a 24v-1HP PM DC motor sitting there ready to go--this one will not burn out.
But the 2inch neo's are way out of financial reach ATM.
So,i will have to wait until your up and running.

Anyway,I'll leave it at that.
Good luck with all you have on your plate ATM.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: madddann on August 13, 2018, 04:38:54 PM
Hello!

Regarding the other patent... this one was floating around on some forums few years ago, but I think it's only an application:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=9414237A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=19940623&DB=&locale=#

Dann
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: gyulasun on August 13, 2018, 11:15:51 PM
Hi Dann,
Yes, that is an application  but it does show a method to minimize cogging.  Here is a replication attempt but I am afraid back then the replicator misunderstood the concept:
https://overunity.com/13751/werjefelts-magnetic-battery/msg368987/#msg368987
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite on August 14, 2018, 12:59:29 AM
I know you're only demonstrating cogging-torque neutralization, and surplus output,  both impressive

I should only have typed  "impressive" ,  the rest of my post was only because I was keen to see a  self-powered-device
_________

I have seen one( or more ? ),  apparent constructions of the design in the diagram on the first post on this thread,   on youtube,  they used those small toy motors with shafts on both ends,  but they did not show the careful  mis-alignment of the rotors( or stators ) required for  'cogging-torque neutralization'.  also,  one or both ran very successfully with doubtful circuitry,  so they both may have been fake .
One video is from about only 4 1/2 months ago ,  they are easy to spot from the picture of several motors( generators ) on the same shaft .
_________

The very simple method of "cogging-torque neutralization", which simply uses for example,

-  an ODD number of stators
-  and EVEN number of rotor-magnets,
-  e.g.  3-coil-with-core-stators  and  2 rotating-magnets

still seems to result in some "cogging-torque",   it seems that all motors and generators ? actually use this very same simple method of "cogging-torque neutralization",  and I have always noticed they had "cogging-torque"  .
_________

In my method however,  in the diagram in the first post in this thread,  you just keep adding generators to the shaft to cover all the  'cogging-gaps' along the shaft,  which should eventually result in no  cogging-torque  .

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Thaelin on August 15, 2018, 06:58:59 AM
If you want to try one that has near no cogging, try 9 coils and ten magnets. Its great, or 10 coils and 9 magnets. It does make things easier.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on August 15, 2018, 02:10:09 PM
I should only have typed  "impressive" ,  the rest of my post was only because I was keen to see a  self-powered-device
_________

I have seen one( or more ? ),  apparent constructions of the design in the diagram on the first post on this thread,   on youtube,  they used those small toy motors with shafts on both ends,  but they did not show the careful  mis-alignment of the rotors( or stators ) required for  'cogging-torque neutralization'.  also,  one or both ran very successfully with doubtful circuitry,  so they both may have been fake .
One video is from about only 4 1/2 months ago ,  they are easy to spot from the picture of several motors( generators ) on the same shaft .
_________

The very simple method of "cogging-torque neutralization", which simply uses for example,

-  an ODD number of stators
-  and EVEN number of rotor-magnets,
-  e.g.  3-coil-with-core-stators  and  2 rotating-magnets

still seems to result in some "cogging-torque",   it seems that all motors and generators ? actually use this very same simple method of "cogging-torque neutralization",  and I have always noticed they had "cogging-torque"  .
_________

In my method however,  in the diagram in the first post in this thread,  you just keep adding generators to the shaft to cover all the  'cogging-gaps' along the shaft,  which should eventually result in no  cogging-torque  .

You need only one magnet and one core to have a true cogless generator.

Pic below shows a 4 phase generator(as in 4 generating coils all 90* out of phase with each other)that i built last week.
It is completely cogless.

All you need is a toroid core,and a diametrically magnetized magnet.
Wind 4 coils onto the toroid-one at each quarter.
Fit the round diametrically magnetized magnet to motor shaft,and fit motor so as the magnet is in dead center of the toroid core.
You now have an absolute cogless generator that is very efficient.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: shylo on August 16, 2018, 10:46:55 AM
Hi TinmanCan you show us the magnet, and point out the poles?If it's a ring magnet, the poles are top and bottom, but you said it's round so I'm not sure how the poles are positioned.Thanksartv
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: citfta on August 16, 2018, 11:47:36 AM

https://www.first4magnets.com/diametrically-magnetised-magnets-t177

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: shylo on August 16, 2018, 07:35:17 PM
Thanks Carroll,
That's what I thought but wasn't sure.
I have one that has 2 poles ,
So is Tinman's one north ,one south or like mine 2 north 2 south?
Thanks

artv
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: tinman on November 29, 2018, 04:56:54 AM
Well Dave,it has been over 3 months now.
When do we get to see this 300 watts in/1800 watts out generator?

I think we all have been very patient here.

Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: postingsite on December 30, 2019, 02:02:18 AM
The motor-generator ( multi-generator ) I posted in the first post / DIAGRAM on this thread ( https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg515952/#msg515952  )  may ALSO produce another effect of overunity-power-production,  that being the  'Resonance-Effect'  of generating excess power if you run the output of more than one of the generators on the same wiring / circuit / conductor .
[  A 'Resonance-Effect' would occur, by perfectly fitting ( interlocking, like cog wheels ) the wave-pattern of one generator with the wave-pattern of a second identical generator and running it on the same wiring / circuit / conductor  ]
Also, obviously if you have enough generators on the same axle ( all correctly dis-aligned ) the entire device would only have to rotate at a very very low rpm to produce massive amounts of power .
Also, obviously, as an alternative to using a 'mixer' to only initially start the device with an external power source before the device becomes self-powered, you could just turn the generator-component manually and then slide the magnets of the  motor-component  into place so that the  motor-component  will work as a motor (  unless your using motors / generators that don't contain any permanent-magnets )
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: kajunbee on December 30, 2019, 02:18:16 PM
Synchronizing generators is done everyday. Go to YouTube and search "how to operate two generators in parralel". The youtubers name is Matt Verley. This was how it was sometimes done with the older boats in our fleet.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: MWestland on January 01, 2020, 07:54:27 AM
Someting Wong
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on January 01, 2020, 07:57:17 AM

Soooooo,
I still haven't finished my house remodel, nor have I gotten one of the several versions of my generator back together to demonstrate or show inputs and output. BUT, my machinist wants to go into the business of manufacturing these things, so he has it up and running on the bench in his shop. With all 12 coils in place you can spin the rotor with two fingers. NO MAGNETIC DRAG OR COGGING.  I live about four hours from his place in Santa Clara, (I used to live 20 minutes from him in San Jose) so I will be driving down there this Sunday, spending the night, and spending all day Monday at his shop working on the machine. I will take LOTS of video and will be able to show inputs and outputs.  My intention is to show the voltage input and amp input to the Razor scooter motor (stock My1020) that is running the generator. Unloaded. Then show the same information with it running some 300 watt lights. Then show the voltage and amps going to the lights from the generator. That should be enough to demonstrate input and output.

For some reason the generator is only running at 1140 RPM when connected to 24 volts, when it was always able to run at 2800 RPM when I had it on my bench, so I have NO IDEA why that is, and I am not THERE right now to figure it out. Maybe a bad battery or low batteries. I just don't know. My machinist is trying to get it to self run, but I don't know if that will happen. It is running on the MY1020 Razor scooter motor connected to two 12 volt batteries in series. He has a small AC motor that, when connected to the wall, ran at 1600 RPM. It is a 1.8 amp motor. He ran it on two of the generator coils and it ran at 1700 RPM. At the same time he was running five 300 watt light bulbs. Now at 1140 RPM, I DOUBT they were at full brightness, but running these loads did not decrease the RPM of the motor, nor did it increase the amp draw of the DC drive motor. He attempted to use this little AC motor to replace the DC motor and run the generator so he could "loop" it, but of course it didn't have enough power. He located another motor rated at 7 amps and 4,000 RPM, and is attempting the same thing with THAT motor. Run it off the wall to get the generator up to speed, then flip a double pole double throw switch and run it off the generator coils. It will probably need more than TWO coils to supply enough amps. Don't know if it will work or if I will be able to get it working when I go down there, but I will be giving it the old college try. At 1140 RPM, I have NO IDEA what the output of a coil pair is. At 2800 RPM its 130 volts at 1.5 amps, so with 12 coils there is enough power to loop it if we can figure out how to do it, and I can figure out why it is running at less than half the normal RPM.  I also have a 110 volt DC motor rated at 26 amps from a treadmill that we will be trying.

Anyway, that's the situation. I will have more to report when I get back here late Monday or Tuesday sometime.  Any suggestions would be helpful. I figure the only way to get it to self run is to either run it off the wall to get it up to speed and then switch over to running off the generator output, or run an inverter on the battery and power a DC or AC motor (rectified) from the inverter output, and then switch over to generator power to do the same thing. I don't see any way to self run the thing without getting it up to speed from an outside source. But then I'm not an electrical engineer either.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: citfta on January 01, 2020, 01:54:19 PM
Hi Dave,

You need to remember that AC motor speed is determined by the frequency of the AC.  And of course there has to be enough current there to be able to supply what the motor needs.  I don't see any way to loop it with an AC motor unless you first convert the output to DC and use that to power an inverter which of course already has a fixed frequency output.  Feel free to give me a call if you need to after you get there.  I'll be glad to help if I can.  Wish I had time to fly out there and give you a hand.

Happy New year and take care,
Carroll
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: citfta on January 01, 2020, 02:25:54 PM
Hi again Dave,

I just realized I need to clarify my previous post.  AC motors that have brushes like those used in vacuum cleaners and electric hand drills etc. are not speed controlled by the frequency of the AC.  They are actually basically universal motors that will run on DC or AC.  So one of those type motors might be able to run directly from the output of the generator as long as the generator frequency is not too high.  An AC frequency of more than 400 hertz or so will cause them to heat up. But if you try to run the motor directly off the generator output you will need some kind of control between the output and the motor to prevent a possible run away condition if the output is more than the motor needs to maintain a certain speed.

Take care,
Carroll
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on January 01, 2020, 07:41:59 PM
Hey Carroll,
Thanks for the info. I don't have a lot of faith in his ability to get it running on AC either, although he is working with an electrical engineer from the independent testing lab where we have taken the generator for testing. The guy is helping him with wiring and such, so maybe they can figure it out. He DOES have the attached device which according to him, controls AC all the way down to 0 output, but from what I can tell, it STILL has to have 120 volt input in the 50-60 Hz range, so I'm not sure what GOOD that does him.

I am pinning MY hopes on the 110 volt DC treadmill motor I am taking with me. I figure if we rectify the output of the AC coil we will get a specific DC voltage if we are running the generator at a specific RPM. Since there is no speed up or slow down under load, the RPM is constant so the voltage output should be too. One coil pair may not have enough amps to run the motor, but two or three will, which still leaves me with three coil pair to use as output to load, and that will light a 300 watt light to full brightness with each coil pair.

My intention is to connect the pictured transformer to wall output, and rectify the output of the transformer to DC. Then run the DC motor with it and use the adjustment to get the motor up to the RPM we want. I can then measure the AC output out of the transformer and compare it to the AC output from a coil pair. If the output from a coil pair is LOWER, I am screwed, unless I rewind the coil with longer strands or up the RPM. If it is HIGHER, and I truly believe it WILL BE, then I reduce the length of the wire on the coil until the AC output from the coil matches the AC output from the wall. If I have to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the length of the wire, I could rewind the coil with more strands to up the amp output, but for NOW I will be happy to just see it self run. I hope this all makes sense. I know, for instance, that dropping the wire length from 1000 feet to 800 feet brought the coil output down from 130 volts to 120 volts. That's MY plan for Monday, but WE BOTH KNOW I AM NO WHIZ WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTRONICS. I am flying by the seat of my pants most times, and depending on guys like you and Matt to bail me out when stuff goes up in smoke.

I have pretty much told my machinist he can keep this version of the machine in his shop, since he is in the process of building ANOTHER one that addresses all the mistakes we made on this one. That will be the 17th version of the generator we have built. If the ferrite cores prove out, this machine will be a waste of time and money anyway because those coils (if successful) that will change the entire design of the machine, but I won't know that until I get mine up and running with the cores I just made and see if ferrite will speed up under load. He doesn't like changes. He has a version that outputs more than it takes to run, and he is happy with that and wants to stick with what he has. I, on the other hand, am all about longer, faster, stronger, more output, more economy of motion, etc. I drive the guy crazy always wanting to make changes.

I am presenting the generator at the Energy Science and Technology Conference in July, so by then I want to have the ferrite thing figured out, and have the bigger machine self running. If all else fails, I can simply show input vs output. That should raise a few eyebrows, but a self runner would be a lot more fun, and that is the goal. I have an electrical engineer friend who is also a physicist who has agreed to help design whatever I need to get it to self run, and we have time before July. I may end up bringing three versions of the generator to the conference just to show. I realize no one believes in this thing, but I have seen inputs and outputs. I KNOW it only takes 288 watts to run that MY1020 Razor scooter motor at 2800 RPM, and by fine tuning the machine, the machinist has gotten it down to less than that. Exactly HOW low, I won't know until Monday. Regardless of that, there is no magnetic drag, and there is no slow down under load from Lenz. Each coil puts out 130 volts at 1.5 amps. He is currently powering five 300 watt bulbs, not to full brightness because it is only running at 1140 RPM for some reason. Now those output numbers are from when I had six 2" x 1/4" magnets on the rotor and the new machine has twelve 1" x 1/2 or 3/4" magnets on the rotor. I honestly don't remember which. It has been too long since we built it and the machinist has had it in his shop for MONTHS. But I DO know that the overall output of the machine went UP when we went to more magnets, because the MASS of the magnets was about the same as the magnets on the original machine, and there were twice as many of them. So we will see on Monday, and I will be taking video of everything.

The only remaining issue for long term running with iron cores is the heat, but by extending the cores out the back of the coils and immersing them in a network of PVC pipe filled with water, I have proven (to myself at least) that this is an issue that has solutions. Ferrite cores may also address that issue, but all that is for another day when I FINALLY have my house remodeled to sell.
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: Dbowling on January 01, 2020, 07:44:06 PM
Hey Carroll,
I don't think a drill motor would have the RPM I need, but I am looking around for a Universal motor in case the DC motor I have doesn't work for some reason.
And I may call you Monday if I get into trouble. Well, more trouble than I am ALREADY in. LOL
Title: Re: Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?
Post by: citfta on January 01, 2020, 08:50:36 PM
Hey Dave,

The easiest way to make your system a self runner is to use the variable transformer you have and connect the input to one or two of your output coils and the output to a 50 amp or so bridge rectifier and the output from the bridge rectifier to your scooter motor.  You already know you can adjust the voltage to the scooter motor to get the speed and power you need.  You can adjust the output of your variable transformer to get the voltage you need for the scooter motor.  That is probably the simplest way to go.  The problem with the universal motors is they are almost always a part of some kind of appliance.  You can rarely find them as stand alone components.  This makes them difficult to adapt for use in something else.  So that is why I suggested just staying with the scooter motor.

If you want to call anytime Monday that is OK with me.  We can probably do a Skype call if I can remember how to do that.  I may have to go out of town though.  I just remembered that my last uncle (Dad's brother) passed away last night.  He lived back in KY so I will be going back there for the funeral.  But my phone will be with me so we can still get together by phone if you need to.  I don't know the funeral arrangements yet so don't know when I will be going.

Take care,
Carroll