Author Topic: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet (Read 9327 times)

sparks · « **on:** December 02, 2008, 12:12:19 AM »

Think about it before dismissing it. If the motor employed (the one with the fan bolted to the "stator") is running at 90 percent conversion to shaft torque what is the efficiency when the stator is doubling the torque output.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:42:49 AM »

Heck, you're missing a whole source of OU. The second fan can be driven by the blast from the first fan. Put a torque converter in there and stand back.

nievesoliveras · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:59:16 AM »

@spark

Is there any circuit for that motor that we should know?

Jesus

sparks · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:20:35 PM »

The motor could be a regular dc permanent magnet motor or an ac induction motor doesnt matter. If we input 1kwhour into the motor and it produces .75 kilowatthours of work on fan one and by simply letting the stator revolve produces .75killowatthours on fan two this clearly shows that there is some gain of energy in this circuit. Now if we want to stay all electric replace the fans with generators. Conversion losses to each generator will be typically 20percent. So we are down to 60killowatt hours on generator one and 60killowatt hours on generator two. Still we have a total of 1.2killowatt hours coming form a one kilowatthour scource just by getting rid of the motor mounts. Any improvement in conversion of voltage to mechanical torque will of course show us more gain. What also can be seen is that a staged event can be arranged where the 1.2 is fed back and soon we are seeing 5or6killowatt hours output or free energy in the amount of 4 or 5 killowatts.

nievesoliveras · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2008, 10:07:25 PM »

@spark

Thank you

Jesus

Yucca · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2008, 12:27:32 AM »

Hi All,

Cox freeflight helicopters are built similar to this, the small gas engine is allowed to rotate and it drives large blades whilst the engine shaft drives a small prop, thus counter-rotation is achieved eliminating torque to the body hanging below and so no tail rotor is needed.

Yucca.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2008, 08:20:14 AM »

Here is a link to a video on one flying. I thought if one blade is fighting the other, neither would win. Unreal.

Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyGJVfD6nxc

Creativity · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2008, 11:25:02 AM »

well.. if u let the stator to rotate free ,its speed will be a portion of total speed of this motor with mounted stator.See,1000rpm at the shaft with non revolving stator(bound to the table) will become 800rpm on the rotor and 200 on the stator (once stator let to spinn free,its mass is bigger than of the shaft so it will spinn slower).Relative speed shaft-stator will stay the same.Speed of shaft will reduce and of stator will increase relatively to the stationary table.If u see this then u will see that blade 1 will not output it's full rated power,Blade 1 will have 90% conversion but from 800rpm,blade 2 will have also 90% conversion from 200rpm and not both 90% from 1000rpm.

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2008, 07:43:56 AM »

Hi folks, hi sparks. Very interesting, are both fan blades on same powered motor shaft. If they are I dont see the issue of the 2nd blade rotating at 200 rpm, the blades would be in parallel so if we input 100 watts each blade would get 50 watts forgetting conversion eff. for now. so in theory we should get 150% eff. of wind generation or greater because now since the 2nd blade now increased its speed due to 1st blades air blowing at it. This may work any one going to test or has any one yet. I think generators with props at periphery of a rotor with a motor driving might work as well so as not to reflect generator load to motor.

peace, love, light

AbbaRue · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2008, 10:13:35 AM »

Isn't this how turbine pumps work?
Multiple blades mounted on one shaft?
Or am I missing a point here?

sparks · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2008, 02:42:55 PM »

The fans pictured are just one type of load so it's not using a turbine effect. One fan is on the rotor and the other fan is bolted to the stator. The whole deal is suspended or tied down by support bearings on a double shaft motor. Now say we brake the stator. The rotor fan takes off and is driven normally. The brake is removed and the stator begins to rotate in direction opposite that of the loaded fan and the rpm of the rotor drops. As the stator accelerates it's attached fan begins to load up. This load braking causes the rotor fan to speed up. Now this load braking causes the stator fan to speed up. The motor now doesn't know which component is the stator and which one is the rotor because they are now both rotors and stators only dependent on the load brake torque to determine which is which. The loads are matched therefore the motor doesn't know which one of it's elements is receiving the brake torque.

sparks · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2008, 12:20:34 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on December 02, 2008, 03:42:49 AM

Heck, you're missing a whole source of OU. The second fan can be driven by the blast from the first fan. Put a torque converter in there and stand back.

You got something there. If the rotorfan is loaded by the statorfan and vise versa she's gonna take off. This has happened before. When Westinghouse first attempted to parallel operate two large ac alternators they were working with seperate govenors. Alternately changing from induction alternators to motors. The prime movers at this point became the load. There was no way to stop the units fast enough as the current levels welded the relays. The units ran up to such high rpm they blew the prime movers apart.
You gotta laugh when you picture the tree burners plants trying to avoid this from happening when they try to synchronize a power plant coming on line.
They are avoiding free reactive energy! Or are they?

Creativity · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2008, 09:50:20 PM »

Quote from: AbbaRue on December 05, 2008, 10:13:35 AM

Isn't this how turbine pumps work?
Multiple blades mounted on one shaft?
Or am I missing a point here?

looks exactly the same to me.
Ok i will try to make it in a picture.No fricion loses,no conversion loses.
Imagine one blade on one engine,it presents a load to the engine.Make it spinn in vacuum and it will present no load and engine will spinna t it's max speed(like without any load).
Blade is capable of making a wind of speed 1m/s at rotation of 1000rpm.
Now i blow on the blade. Blade is facing a wind of 0.5 m/s in the direction of its operation.

As a result the total wind will become 1.5 m/s and motor will speed up to the speed that makes the blade to be the same load as without frontal blow.Why?because the frontal wind creates a conditions of less resistance for the blade(frontal wind pushing the blades to rotate faster).

OK now we have 2 identical engines with 2 identical blades.We set them up in a tunnel so all the wind produced by blade 1 in passing through the blade2.
Obviously both blades will rotate faster than normally because both are facing lower resistance due to frontal wind created by other blade.Total wind out of tunnel will be 2m/s however.See that higher rotation of blades(and engines) does not implicates that they use or produce more power...just that load got smaller.
Hope it is clear now.

AbbaRue · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2008, 10:44:38 PM »

@sparks
I get the picture now.
Instead of 1 shaft turning at 1200 rpm. in one direction.
you have 2 shafts turning at 600 rpm. in opposite directions.
But to the outside world we still get 1200 rpm.
Are you implying that this motor uses half as much power to run because of this?

infringer · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2008, 01:55:47 AM »

I am totally missing the point as well where you get over unity here is beyond me I have thought this through fairly well I believe and I do not see advantage in so to speak.

But please do continue down the path it is people who give up that do not succeed.

-infringer-

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet (Read 9327 times)

sparks

Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

TinselKoala

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

nievesoliveras

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

sparks

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

nievesoliveras

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

Yucca

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

Pirate88179

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

Creativity

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

SkyWatcher123

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

AbbaRue

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

sparks

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

sparks

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

Creativity

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

AbbaRue

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet

infringer

Re: Simplist Overunity Device on the Planet