@Dave45
You really need to practice your image resampling skills. The images are too big and the simplicity of the image does not warrant such big images on thread pages because this sends posted text way off the normal screen size. Images should never be more then 640 pixels wide.
@sm0ky2
Great post, thanks.
About the commutator, you see, the best components are not for our hands or eyes or brains. But at least it is good to know since I did indicate it would be a good R&D tool. Would save a bundle on burnt contacts.
Your comments on the Batteries, I do not fully understand
What you are saying. I get the premise, true batteries will only charge at their max rate
And anything else you try to stick in will just circle past and be lost.
Yes, and the general rule is 20% of the amp rating. So if you have a 10 amp battery, pulling 4 amps from it will only mean eventually the battery will die regardless of your ability to recharge because the battery itself has limits. Now you may look at the battery in amp, amp hours, mAh or however, it does not change the 20% limit of recharge.
On a second point, we have seen devices that do reactive power recharge of the battery when consuming more then that 20% and we miraculously see the voltage rise back to the original level and we are all amazed at this. But what we soon realize is even if the battery is showing a recharge to 12vdc, that actual usable amp hours is no longer available. At 6 cells, each cell gets its 2v and totals to 12v.
So as a load test you take your normal charged 12vdc battery and hook up any load then see how long it takes to fall down to 10.5 volts (never lower). You then take that battery and recharge via your reactive power output and quickly see the voltage rise back to 12vdc. But when you do the same load test, it takes maybe 10% of the original time to fall back down to 10.5vdc. Why do you think that is? That one cause/effect is a total giveaway of how batteries actually charge, discharge. Why in our present acceptance of physics, should a damn electron care if a battery is charged by slow trickle charge or a fast reactive charge? If electrons were REAL, they should not care and the influence and result should then be the same, but they are not. Big giveaway.
First the battery material or choice of atoms as per the Periodical table of elements. Certain materials have atoms with nuclei that possess a load, lock and release function. When you charge the battery it will load (or sway) and lock nuclei of the atomic material. When you connect a load you basically release the locks in cascade as per how thick or how many atoms are involved in the chain of copper atoms (wire) leading to the load. Yes our wire is basically a chain of copper atoms with very reactive nuclei. Reactive in the sense that the nuclei has the ability to pivot as per the potential applied. They pivot and convey that pivot down the line of the wire. Same happens in the battery material except that this material the nuclei can pivot and lock and then be released. The chemical addition helps in the locking.
Let's say each battery cell had plate material that was 10 inches deep by 4 inches wide. When you slow or trickle charge the battery, the atomic nuclei of those plates are being locked successively because the charger is also charging with 12vdc which is the required voltage to cross the 10 inch depth of each plate and the slow charge makes sure each site on the plates are loaded and locked. This is why a slow charged battery lasts.
When you use reactive high voltage as a recharge, you are basically whipping along the 10 inch depth and losing most of the "locking potential" because the voltage or speed of conveyance is just too fast for battery atoms. So you create these whipping marks going down the 10 inch depth of the plates and you quickly see 12vdc because voltage is how deep that conveyance is and amperage is simply how may atoms are involved. Just to say if you wanted to use high voltage reactive recharge you need the same voltage battery. So many many in series like the Newman motor and possibly like the SM TPUs. When you have the right voltage battery matched to the operating voltage you sidestep the need of a step up transformer and eliminate the pitfalls of such usage.
You see, certain topologies work better at higher voltages. Hit an aluminum kite with 12000v and it fill want to fly away. Certain atoms convey, others nudge, enough to levitate like Hutchisson showed. The atoms we live with everyday have been undersold, neglected or ignored or hidden for their true attributes.
Tomorrow, if a scientist came forward and said "Men were always able to have children" (maybe a bad example but anyways), this would provide a new masculine attribute that would change the world. We were always men, like atoms were always atoms, but now with the realization that the atom has these special attributes that we never considered at a nucleic/mechanical/physical level, with this new perspective, it totally changes, eliminates, renders obsolete so many of our present constructs that have no relation to the actual working or not working of our toys. Our toys work yes, but they work regardless if we are correct about how they work or not.
Sorry for rambling on like this.
Look suffice to say that the battery choice should be the most defining factor of how you design your OU experiments when that experiment involves recharging that source battery back to its ORIGINAL power level. An experiment calls for 120 volts at 1 amp. Your battery is a 12vdc 10 amp. You pulse that 12vdc into a step up transformer to produce your required 120volts at 1 amp. We know the 12vdc battery will draw at least 10 amps. For the battery to recharge with any chance of success, it would have to be a 12vdc 50 amps rated battery. Anything less and you will always lose. But the simpler method is to put ten 12vdc batteries in series to make your 120vdc so you just cancelled the step-up transformer as well as the inherent losses of such usage that your OU device now has as an additional charge to overcome. Plus if you eliminate the stepup transformer because the battery is matched to the real operating voltage, you also cancel the need for stepping down the output voltage to then recharge that one battery. Then the trick remains that the OU device uses the proper voltage, provides the same proper recharge and this permit you to then only concentrate on working on ways to augment the output amperage that will then provide the OU in the system without modifying or adding anything for the output voltage to recharge the batteries. I think SM made his TPUs this way. Lot's of batteries in series but his circuitry then permits the batteries to last and last far longer then a regular battery could.
I am not saying this to regulate how guys do OU experiments. I'm only saying this so guys can look at their battery source as being more then a simple source but a defining factor in how the circuit will be run. What would you prefer? Spending all your time on fixing the step up and step down changes in your circuit that almost always want to blow up at certain frequencies, or do you prefer spending the majority of your time working on the actual "energy amplification" stage?
@Erfinder
The cores we use ARE linear. Same thickness throughout and this is why we work on a 1:1 or any other ratio by the turns of wire used. Without knowing it, we have been confirming since the first core, that the lamination could play a pivotal part in coupling ratios. Imagine all the copper wire that could be saved with triangular core laminations. I cannot make such a lamination but if anyone had a press, they could probably press the lamination with a slight incline that would make one end thicker then the other. No one has ever done this yet so for me it is still a good out of the box idea but making into reality is not so easy. Maybe one day when I accumulate enough money I will look into it but right now, it's just a point of "logical" thought.
As for the question of physics and the conservation of energy, that concept should never have been brought forward without a main caveat stating "Based on what we know today". What I have been doing is basically saying "OK, so where and why do we know what we know today and where can we look to know other things in the future". This is where I started to grow out of the Standard EE base because after millions of OU checkmates from around the World, one eventually has to universally realize that maybe the concepts are faulty to begin with, and from there, the World started to open up in all directions. Our tools are second rate and this is why our concepts are second rate as well. If we called the electron "King Kong" and the field "Peter Pan", they would fall better into the level of reality of our concepts. We say "electron" and "field" and it sounds so official, so real, when in fact they are merely characters in a long drawn out fairy tale. Tesla also saw these as fairy tales and stuck with his cause/effect way of talking about his devices. He never espoused the words electron or field. He would be true to the effect and say "influence" because in reality that's all we could see is an influence being a cause, causing the effect. We were all just bamboozled by eager physicists to get their names into the history books more then the level of reality they brought to science. It is for us to decide when it is time to break out of the mold that our minds were set in from birth.
wattsup
