Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### 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.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 894446
• Total Topics: 15730
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 8
• Total: 12

### Author Topic: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated  (Read 228134 times)

#### gotoluc

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #990 on: June 06, 2018, 06:05:49 AM »
Luc, we discussed this before. Based on the measurements you did, your coils have a resistance of 0.53ohm and an inductance of about 0.56mH. When in registration with the rotor, this increases with about a factor of 4, so about 2.1mH.

The time constant of a coil is L/R and cut-off frequency (3dB point) is fc=R/(2*pi*L). Filling in the above values gives fc=0.53/(2*pi*2.1e-3)=40Hz.

It doesn't matter what calculations come to. What matters is the real world tests and what I was trying to find before moving forward. For me, the time constant is right when you get to the frequency just before the inductive discharge drops in output. If you lower the frequency and your input goes up but your inductive discharge does not then your time constant is too long and you're just wasting input power. So at what frequency did you observe this to happen in my video demo?

Considering your stator steel was probably designed for 50-60Hz, the fc of 40Hz that you have for your coils is not bad. In fact it is in the correct ballpark.

I agree the stator laminations are suited for 50 to 60Hz but you can clearly see your calculations did not work out with the low frequency tests.
I'm not criticizing you but I don't understand how you can not see that from the video demo I made for you?

The questions is why we are not seeing more voltage on the output coil. There can be two answers to that:
1. You don't have enough windings on the output coil. Solution: try and output coil with more windings, like a factor of 5 or so.

You're saying the same thing again even after I added a 600 turn coil which made no difference. You think adding another 600 turns will output more current? ... There's a huge amount of flux in the stator, that's not the problem. The problem is and I've said it before there's NO CHANGE!... the flux is all equal and keeps rotating around evenly. We need something to make a change to create a dis-balance, maybe then the flux will move from one side to the other to re-balance and hopefully it will go through the rotor to do so. Then we may have a chance of more output. I will be testing this and many other variations. However, (as is)  it's not going to do anything more then what I demonstrated no matter how many winding turns I add on the rotor core. That's a fact.

-2. The output rotor is too thick and shorting part of the two neighboring poles when they pass the rotor. Solution: use a thinner rotor.

Did you not see these tests:  https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522156/#msg522156

Regards
Luc

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #990 on: June 06, 2018, 06:05:49 AM »

#### pmgr

• Full Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #991 on: June 06, 2018, 06:12:53 AM »
Made a new center rotor core yesterday but only posting the results today.

Video Part 1:  https://youtu.be/Y4oJ0e9BcZc

Video Part 2:  https://youtu.be/PSGs6xbah00

Video Part 3:  https://youtu.be/8hrBa8qRhY4
Luc, these are very interesting results, especially the last video.

Regarding the two different rotors that you have tried, probably the ideal thickness of the rotor is something in between, so maybe half the original thickness, maybe double/triple the the thickness of the thin rotor.

What is clear is that we need to go to higher voltage on the output coil by increasing the number of turns on the output coil (not the input coils).

How many windings did you have on the first rotor and how many on the second thin rotor (400turns on second thin rotor I believe recalling the video?)

Since your original coil has a double winding, you can try and put those two windings in series instead of parallel. That should give you double the voltage and will be a good datapoint, but probably still not enough voltage. It would be even better if you could increase it to a factor of 5 so you can get 100-150V on the output coil.

It might be easier to get more windings on the thinner second rotor to try it, so try that first before increase the thickness of that thin rotor. It should be easy to add another 400 turns, then repeat your measurements, then add another 400 turns and repeat your measurements.

Make sure to be safe going forward though: the output coil will have higher voltage that you can't just touch with your hands.

1. Power supply in: 750mA rms at 7.16V or 5.35W (versus your math trace of 4.74VA)

2. Recovered power: 840mA rms at 7.13V or 5.99W (versus your math trace of 4.35VA)

3. Power consumed in load resistor: 5.4V rms over 100ohms or 0.3W

4. Power consumed in input coils: each single coil is 0.53ohm. You have six coils in series and six of these series coilsets in parallel, so 0.53ohm overall resistance.

Assuming total input current to coils is what comes from the power supply plus what comes from the recovery (assuming the capacitor voltage remains constant): 750mA rms + 840mA rms, or 1.59A rms (btw it would be good to check what the current is that actually goes into the coils together; not sure if you can do that with your current configuration).

So total power absorbed in input coils is: 0.84W.

Let's see the balance (let's take the math trace numbers): out/in = (0.3 + 0.84)/4.74 = 24% efficiency

PmgR

#### pmgr

• Full Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #992 on: June 06, 2018, 07:28:49 AM »
Luc,

As you state it, you want the output coil to have more current. The way physics works, this is not something you can do directly. The only way to do this is by making sure the output coil has enough voltage to support a low resistance load which will then give a high current.

Voltage on the output coil is proportional to -Nout*dflux/dt where Nout is the number of windings on the output coil. The flux is generated by the input coils and the flux captured by the output coil is proportional to M*Iin where M is the coupling from input coil to output coil and Iin is the input current.

The coupling M between input and output is proportional to k*sqrt(Lin*Lout) where Lin is the input inductance and Lout the output inductance and k a constant related to the stator and rotor coupling.

So you can increase the output voltage by either increasing Iin, Lin or Lout, k or a combination.

Lin is proportional to Nin*Nin, Lout is proportional to Nout*Nout and just as in a transformer, output voltage divided by input voltage is proportional to Nout/Nin, just like in a regular transformer.

So if you want to increase the output voltage, you will either need to increase Nin, Nout, k or Iin. Since you don't want to increase your input voltage, the only options left over are increasing Nout, k or Iin.

You can maximize k for better coupling between stator and rotor by adjusting its thickness. This is what you have already done. Just find the optimum rotor thickness.

You have already changed the amount of current as well with still no good results for increased output voltage.

So the only thing left is to increase the number of turns on the output coil. You can increase the input inductance as well, but in that case you still need to increase the output inductance as well, otherwise your voltage is still not going up. If you want the output voltage to increase, you need to put more turns on the output than you are putting on the input.

Lasty, if you go to a higher frequency, that will increase your voltage as well, but if you are moving past the frequency limit of the stator iron, that will decrease the voltage, so these work against each other.

That's why I say to leave the input coils the same so they are in the ballpark of the stator frequency, but increase the number of turns on the output coil and find the best width for the rotor.

PmgR

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #992 on: June 06, 2018, 07:28:49 AM »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 462
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #993 on: June 06, 2018, 09:11:57 AM »
Hi gotoluc and everyone
To increase volages from the output coil it would be nice if the inductive spikes would manifest themselves in its output too.
But now the cap bank seems to be absorbing them all
In dc pulse motor, if  I wrap a large pickup wind around and behind a motor coil,  both coils sharing same core, the inductive kickback spikes will manifest in the pickup winds quite strong and will help to fill cap faster and higher in voltage
But seems the inductive spikes do not "ride on top" of the output coil in the video tests  for some reason.
Maybe pre charge caps first like Pierre does and the fact caps are fuly filled up will prevent spikes from entering and so spikes will enter instead  the output coil and help with seeing some higher volages there (just idea)
Also all this said there is question about just what is the recovered power?
How can it be inductive spikes if stator coils never turn off and only rotate around?
Maybe the crawling motion dynamics of coil A on them coil A and B on  them coil B for stator field rotation does create the inductive spikes energy shown on scope...??
Two other questions:
Inductive spikes seen  on scope are at least x20 higher voltage than input  voltage so when filling up super caps around 20v seems like almost all is lost?
(But is the recovered energy shown in scope ireally inductive spikes?)
Finally the watts output is calculation of when voltage is over, or on "top of" of the current...so if no overlapping in time of current form with voltage form, how can scope show anything but "volts amps" but never watts as far as the recovered energy goes ...so you see only currents by themselves and voltage by itself....
Also maybe separate independent cap bank being filled by "recovered energy" would be better than filling up same cap bank that is also running the show as this causes a lot of clashing and  butted  heads in current flows so lots will be cancelled out and you don't get full picture

#### listener192

• Full Member
• Posts: 179
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #994 on: June 06, 2018, 09:55:15 AM »
Hi Gotoluc,

Jerdee indicates he has the missing component, so have you tried adding that yet?

Regards

L192

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #994 on: June 06, 2018, 09:55:15 AM »

#### listener192

• Full Member
• Posts: 179
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #995 on: June 06, 2018, 10:08:59 AM »
Hi L192,
From the Hyun Chung patent application:The bold lines could sound like claiming overunity even though this isn't put in the claims. Of course it is a mixture of EMF and power so who knows what he meant?! Then in paragraph 16:
Coherent fields
In a coil it is clearly seen that the field is coherent as doubling the turns number quadruples the stored energy at the same current. Doubling the turns number quadruples the inductance of the coil. The energy stored in an inductor is (1/2)LI2. Thus quadrupling the inductance L at the same current I quadruples the stored energy.

If on the other hand the turns number is doubled by just putting two similar coils in series without having their magnetic fields share the same space in the same direction the inductance is just added up (doubled). Thus the stored energy is also only doubled.
The trick is to input the energy as separate waves and then mix the waves into a single coherent wave before extracting the energy. Several free energy devices looks like using this principle which W.B. Smith calls 'The Principle of Inversion.'

Energy in an inductor: https://wiki2.org/en/Inductor#Stored_energy
Inductance formulas: https://wiki2.org/en/Inductor#Inductance_formulas

Regards
Ole
This is from another member that commented on the points I made.  I could not word a better response so here it is.[/size]

[/size]
A B-field is proportional to a coil current. When you detect it with another coil, the captured flux is proportional to the B-field and the generated EMF is proportional to dflux/dt. There is no squaring action so flux just adds up. If you were talking about force, then yes, force is proportional to B*I, so that will leave you with an I squared (I*I). This is actually what is used in reluctance motors. I note an I squared (not a B squared)[/size]

[/size]
L192[/size]

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 462
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #996 on: June 06, 2018, 01:12:03 PM »
The last paragraph is speaking of "detection" of one coil with another and then the "cspturing"  of  the  field
Detecting then capturing is not.creating coherence as far as i dont know

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #996 on: June 06, 2018, 01:12:03 PM »

#### Belfior

• Hero Member
• Posts: 562
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #997 on: June 06, 2018, 01:29:04 PM »
This is from another member that commented on the points I made.  I could not word a better response so here it is.[/size]

[/size]
A B-field is proportional to a coil current. When you detect it with another coil, the captured flux is proportional to the B-field and the generated EMF is proportional to dflux/dt. There is no squaring action so flux just adds up. If you were talking about force, then yes, force is proportional to B*I, so that will leave you with an I squared (I*I). This is actually what is used in reluctance motors. I note an I squared (not a B squared)[/size]

[/size]
L192[/size]

Chung is careful on his wording not to say over unity. What he is saying is "self looped without external energy after the initial start-up"

#### gotoluc

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #998 on: June 06, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »
Hi Gotoluc,

Jerdee indicates he has the missing component, so have you tried adding that yet?

Regards

L192
Hi L192,
I first wanted to test the device (as is) so that we have a baseline and know what it can do. Hopefully everyone is satisfied with my tests and are convinced the device is not capable of anything special without a variation or modification of some kind, other then adding more turns to the fixed rotor.

We have now tried the variation Jerdee was quite convinced was the missing component, However, it has not assisted the output as he hopped.

We are reviewing Pierre's newest hints and today Jerdee is writing several program variation to observe some finer differences. I will post videos of the tests once I have them. One of the tests will be looking at full H-Bridge AC output which we already know from the previous L298M tests helps the output.

With Pierre new hint of coil isolation we are considering the extra set of 36 diodes and relays may be used full AC input?... can you please have a look at that possibility and let us know what you think.

I'm interested in testing bucking coils and a momentary shut off of one field side to create a dis-balance.  So as you can see we still many option variations to test and peoples suggestions are also welcomed since it looks like I may be the only one with a device that can be tested without switching issues.

Regards
Luc

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #998 on: June 06, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »

#### listener192

• Full Member
• Posts: 179
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #999 on: June 06, 2018, 04:13:40 PM »
Hi Gotoluc ,

With the relays ,I was running line ripple into the coils but with the bridge boards you can’t separate supply and recovery, so that won’t be possible. In fact you will only be able to make current reversals with the bridge switches. You could try changing the polarity on line 6 in the sequence. This will provide a large step change and half the clock rate for a given output frequency.

My rotor coils likely had over 1000T hence the high voltages I measured. They were the original generator rotor coils.

Regards

L192

#### jerdee

• Newbie
• Posts: 49
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1000 on: June 06, 2018, 04:28:33 PM »
We are reviewing Pierre's newest hints and today Jerdee is writing several program variation to observe some finer differences. I will post videos of the tests once I have them. One of the tests will be looking at full H-Bridge AC output which we already know from the previous L298M tests helps the output.

With Pierre new hint of coil isolation we are considering the extra set of 36 diodes and relays may be used full AC input?... can you please have a look at that possibility and let us know what you think.

I believe we are having major issues with cutting the flux lines on our armature due to our inefficient fields.  This has to be our problem.  We've done enough work with high amps and plenty enough voltage on these windings...to the point of cooking the enamel.  You see, when driving 5 coils in series, you only have the middle three that are effectively working.  This is only 60% of the 5 coils that are doing anything important.  This is NOT good.
With a 36 poles, you have much more effective field.

It all comes down to creating a stronger field to cut the armature windings.  Isolated coils is the answer!!!

When you isolate the coils, you have to rethink switching.  This is why you need FULL A/C mode and not just the half bridges.  So  the switching is more involved, but good news, we've already done this test from the earlier bridges.  This method works!!!  We just didn't isolate the coils.

Pierre is clearly moving forward with NOT tying the coils together in series!  This is NOT needed.  You cancel the fields at the end of the 5 coils.  Or 6 on a 36 poles.   You want the strongest field presented to the armature without loss.  The code is more complicated, but not that much.   I simply export switch states from excel.  It's quite efficient really.   Believe, after a while, you find ways to be more efficient and have no errors in switching states.

So the answer is to isolate the coils, and don't place them in series. Tie all the diodes together.

This is my focus on research right now.

Hopefully this clear up some confusion.  There is still more to come.
Again, I'm trying to think very systematically, and not overcomplicate.  Pierre device is a much simpler than many of us our thinking. Keep it simple.

Jerdee

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

##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1000 on: June 06, 2018, 04:28:33 PM »

#### listener192

• Full Member
• Posts: 179
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1001 on: June 06, 2018, 04:30:37 PM »
It is probably better not to think you have the missing component and say study generator basics etc until you have verified and confirmed the idea. At the very least such statements are patronising and at worst time wasting. I think Pierre is the only one that can make a statement like that, as he is the only one that has demonstrated the working device and the only one that knows the simple idea.

If anyone disagrees with me, then show me a working device.

Wether something is simple or not, is a subjective matter.

L192

#### listener192

• Full Member
• Posts: 179
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1002 on: June 06, 2018, 05:39:48 PM »
Luc,

As you state it, you want the output coil to have more current. The way physics works, this is not something you can do directly. The only way to do this is by making sure the output coil has enough voltage to support a low resistance load which will then give a high current.

Voltage on the output coil is proportional to -Nout*dflux/dt where Nout is the number of windings on the output coil. The flux is generated by the input coils and the flux captured by the output coil is proportional to M*Iin where M is the coupling from input coil to output coil and Iin is the input current.

The coupling M between input and output is proportional to k*sqrt(Lin*Lout) where Lin is the input inductance and Lout the output inductance and k a constant related to the stator and rotor coupling.

So you can increase the output voltage by either increasing Iin, Lin or Lout, k or a combination.

Lin is proportional to Nin*Nin, Lout is proportional to Nout*Nout and just as in a transformer, output voltage divided by input voltage is proportional to Nout/Nin, just like in a regular transformer.

So if you want to increase the output voltage, you will either need to increase Nin, Nout, k or Iin. Since you don't want to increase your input voltage, the only options left over are increasing Nout, k or Iin.

You can maximize k for better coupling between stator and rotor by adjusting its thickness. This is what you have already done. Just find the optimum rotor thickness.

You have already changed the amount of current as well with still no good results for increased output voltage.

So the only thing left is to increase the number of turns on the output coil. You can increase the input inductance as well, but in that case you still need to increase the output inductance as well, otherwise your voltage is still not going up. If you want the output voltage to increase, you need to put more turns on the output than you are putting on the input.

Lasty, if you go to a higher frequency, that will increase your voltage as well, but if you are moving past the frequency limit of the stator iron, that will decrease the voltage, so these work against each other.

That's why I say to leave the input coils the same so they are in the ballpark of the stator frequency, but increase the number of turns on the output coil and find the best width for the rotor.

PmgR

Fully agree.

L192

#### gotoluc

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1003 on: June 06, 2018, 06:21:36 PM »

Fully agree.

L192

I'm sure Pmgr EE Theory is correct but I'm interested in physical results. So why is it not working out that way in the real physical tests?

Regards
Luc

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 462
##### Re: Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated
« Reply #1004 on: June 06, 2018, 06:53:13 PM »
Hi Luc
"peoples suggestions are also welcomed since it looks like I may be the only one with a device that can be tested without switching issues"
OK!
I would say to forget about the crawling-rotation of coils always being ON...pulse all the coils you can do in a string ON-OFF give some decent OFF time so the coils can breath stay cool and kick out much better backemff/recoil/flyback....and hopefully thist will include some of the inherent backemf forces too and caps will fill up like crazy.

Common generators work on the make and break principle if all make and no break you don't get much...
Think about WHERE does the energy really "come from" in a generator - its actually a very mysterious thing to ponder and no amount of textbook science can fully explain - its not the magnets or electromagnets, or the windings or the rotation or anything else physical  it does not come from THOSE THINGS it comes from "out there" somewhere and supply is endless...

Use your intuition along with common sense what to try next...
( I like the bucking idea!)

Don't let people (like me) influence you too much its your baby