Totally Bullshit, sorry,
More paddles == better - 4 feet == better,  2 brains == better, 2 broken legs == better

Well, you have a right to your own opinion. 
I think your " this is bullshit" comment is directed towards my evaluation of the setup paddle wheel efficiency and not to my fair questions directed to the inventor?

This is no normal turbine. I set up a formula for the ideal amount of paddles. (see attachement)

Yes, this is not a normal turbine, it is a very inefficient one. Inventor is aware of this fact.
Btw, your formula is far from reality (it uses a geometrical approach without any usefull connections with real turbines).

The number of "paddles" in a "real turbine" is determined by the long series of calculations considering tens of parameters like head/water jet velocity/pressure/air flow, expected power/torque/operating rpm,  complete geometry (of inlets, nozzle(s), paddles,..), turbine dimensions -diameter, subtype of turbine, etc, etc... One of the main factors is (>100years known fact) that the distance between paddles is usually less than a 'diameter' of a single paddle. (The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)
And a diameter of the paddle "cup" is at least 2,5x bigger than a diameter of a jet stream... More than a century of turbine development and millions of engineer hours went into what we know about turbines today... That's why I said "no need to invent a hot water again"...

I hope you'd agree that a right choice  for an application "described" in this thread is a Pelton type turbine, which is an impulse driven machine, meaning the water stream kinetic energy is transferred to a turbine torque by "chopping" an incoming water jet in as small as possible "quanta" carrying motional energy. Newtonian physic, force parallelograms,  fluid dynamics and more than a century of a "real life" experience..

Feel free to layout your exact derived efficiency calculation.
I have no clue where you buy your truth - maybe should buy somewhere else.

Lol, i get "my truth" out of already existing knowledge. I'd suggest you try it, too. It won't hurt, I promise.
After understanding the turbines, you may remove your "bullshit" post about "less&bigger paddles is better". Sorry, no offence!

And, about efficiency "calcs" - I said it's my own evaluation, based on following:

Take "A state of the art Pelton turbine". (It has >90% kinetics exchange (overall) efficiency).

Of all variables, change just the geometry (use a flat paddles instead of Pelton "cups"). In practice, this reduces the efficiency by some 50%... (check out the "Pelton-cups" physics, an U-turn kinetics, a "conservation of mass" principle with the water stream velocity vectors...)

Now, remove 80 % of the paddles (that would be close to a paddle wheel discussed here), or a case calculated by Fritz...
This step severely downgrades the efficiency for additional ~60,..70%...

So, 0,9*0,5*0,3= 0,13 %...

Of course, there's a bunch of equations for calculating Pelton efficiency, too, but they all need a "real case" with as much as known data possible...
Which is not what we have at the moment, right?

I'll say again - the "poor paddle wheel" is certainly not a "cause of OU", claimed by the inventor. I'm sure of that. So, what's the truth?
 

Btw Fritz, I might talk "bullshit".... Only Time will tell...
Cheers!

Well, you have a right to your own opinion. 
I think your " this is bullshit" comment is directed towards my evaluation of the setup paddle wheel efficiency and not to my fair questions directed to the inventor?

yes.

Yes, this is not a normal turbine, it is a very inefficient one. Inventor is aware of this fact.
Btw, your formula is far from reality (it uses a geometrical approach without any usefull connections with real turbines).

If this would be a nominal setup - I would agree with you -
I just think that the "innefficient" setup plays some role in the
overall effect. This is the reason why I think that normal engineering
principles might be not sufficient to explain what happens.
Because lots of people here throw around with quite
non-orthodox theories what concerns electrical engineering -
I think even mechanical or hydrodynamic setups might show
non-conventional effects.

The number of "paddles" in a "real turbine" is determined by the long series of calculations considering tens of parameters like head/water jet velocity/pressure/air flow, expected power/torque/operating rpm,  complete geometry (of inlets, nozzle(s), paddles,..), turbine dimensions -diameter, subtype of turbine, etc, etc... One of the main factors is (>100years known fact) that the distance between paddles is usually less than a 'diameter' of a single paddle. (The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)
And a diameter of the paddle "cup" is at least 2,5x bigger than a diameter of a jet stream... More than a century of turbine development and millions of engineer hours went into what we know about turbines today... That's why I said "no need to invent a hot water again"...

and thats exact the point.

(The transfer of energy should be as smooth as possible, so in any time there's at least 2 of the paddles hit with the water stream...)

I expect that the oscillating energy in this "inefficient" setup interacts with the
pump which adds extra energy due to high energy water bursts.
(the inertia of the wheel is quite low - and by using a belt in the transmission -
the wheel may experience oscillating torque)
If this plays a role in the effect - the design principles you  mention above have
nothing todo with the efficiency of the device - the opposite will be the case -
and it would work like an ordinary "inefficient" setup.

This is why I calulated the minimum geometrical amount of paddles for
maximum oscillation.

I hope you'd agree that a right choice  for an application "described" in this thread is a Pelton type turbine, which is an impulse driven machine, meaning the water stream kinetic energy is transferred to a turbine torque by "chopping" an incoming water jet in as small as possible "quanta" carrying motional energy. Newtonian physic, force parallelograms,  fluid dynamics and more than a century of a "real life" experience..

yes, but I think we need other design principles here as suggested above.

Lol, i get "my truth" out of already existing knowledge. I'd suggest you try it, too. It won't hurt, I promise.
After understanding the turbines, you may remove your "bullshit" post about "less&bigger paddles is better". Sorry, no offence!

I?m very sorry about that "bullshit" - statement - but I somehow got
offended that everyone is claiming "inefficient" - but doesn?t lay out any
arguments.

And, about efficiency "calcs" - I said it's my own evaluation, based on following:
Take "A state of the art Pelton turbine". (It has >90% kinetics exchange (overall) efficiency).
Of all variables, change just the geometry (use a flat paddles instead of Pelton "cups"). In practice, this reduces the efficiency by some 50%... (check out the "Pelton-cups" physics, an U-turn kinetics, a "conservation of mass" principle with the water stream velocity vectors...)

no problem with that.

Now, remove 80 % of the paddles (that would be close to a paddle wheel discussed here), or a case calculated by Fritz...
This step severely downgrades the efficiency for additional ~60,..70%...

So, 0,9*0,5*0,3= 0,13 %...

Of course, there's a bunch of equations for calculating Pelton efficiency, too, but they all need a "real case" with as much as known data possible...
Which is not what we have at the moment, right?

I'll say again - the "poor paddle wheel" is certainly not a "cause of OU", claimed by the inventor. I'm sure of that. So, what's the truth?
 

I?m not that sure what concerns the role of the paddlewheel here.

Btw Fritz, I might talk "bullshit".... Only Time will tell...

Lets see - if this is another "magic generator" setup - what I don?t think because there
looks to be serious people involved - than the OU has to happen somewhere else.

If there is an oscillation water stream - the construction principles for
a pelton turbine are completly wrong here.

sorry for the "bullshit" - maybe I wanted to provoke a more detailed discussion.

rgds.

Hi Fritz!
I know (and have noticed in the past) that you're one of the clever "tinkerers" around here, that's why I reacted on your "bullshit" post.... (I admit I was a little insulted, because you're one of those which opinion I respect...)

I understand your reasoning, still, I'm very skeptical about the truth behind this setup.
Maybe it's because I've seen too many similar claims (without a definite proof) in the past years?

OK, let's give the inventor a chance to produce or show us something, and let's all hope for the best!
See you!

I finally, after numerous trys,  had the wheel spinning on its own. 

James

Ok that should make everyone stand up from their chairs
Can you tell us what was the setup and where is this wheel now ?
(I hope you did not trash it just like all other PM inventors in past)

JDHardy wrote:

...I went through so many different angles on the magnets to try and make the wheel spin using a large magnet to bounce off the hamster wheel.  I finally, after numerous trys,  had the wheel spinning on its own.  But this is just an old story.  A lot has happened since then...

?!?!?!?
Hmm, such statements are certainly not helping with your credibility.... 

Ok that should make everyone stand up from their chairs
Can you tell us what was the setup and where is this wheel now ?
(I hope you did not trash it just like all other PM inventors in past)

Spinner and Omega_O,

I probably should have never brought up things I have done in the past.  It is true that I made a magnet wheel ten or twelve years ago.  Sorry you don't believe in me but I did it.  I have no reason to make up stories on this website.  Making the new video, I have truly been having problems and it takes time to solve problems when changes are made.  It seems like so many people doubt my credibility because things I do are hard to believe and are against convention beliefs.  But everything I say is the truth and I'm getting tired of having to give explanations to people on this website.  As I explained in earlier comments, there are a lot more people working on this than me.  I was warned not to go on this type of website because of skeptics and nonbelievers.  Most of the people pick on anything they can find.  I still would like to thank people for all the good comments but I'm really thinking of cancelling my membership on this website.  The machine will be getting documented as soon as possible.  Likewise, the new video will be out as soon as possible.  But I'm finished for now on this website.  I will not be back to reply on any comments until the documentation is complete and the video is finished.  Good luck all.

James

OK GUYS

leave the man alone.  Give him time to get the work done.  When you work all week and the only time to work on the project is weekends  it takes time. So far James has done nothing wrong  just because he did not answer your questions  like you want  does not make him a fake.   BACK OFF  give the man some time.

GOD BLESS to all

wer

Hello Ffritz 

Your seeing in the right direction. The jerking of the  spoons add to the rotation with stored energy in the mowing water.
 The sam applies to a steady pull on a  chain  runs for ever( till it breaks)    But if you  jerk the chain as it pulls  then it will  pull harder  but the energy that is  thansferd to the chain will cause the chain to break prematurly.
The Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator also used jerking  belts on his flywheels to help deliver the extria energy  needed for his system to work.

Ok group  open mind  think out side the box.