Author Topic: New invention of motion less generation of electric power (Read 351035 times)

neha9243 · « **Reply #675 on:** January 10, 2010, 08:34:41 AM »

Eagerly waiting for your video, keep the good work

many thanks and salute to your great work for whole mankind.

neha9243

winsonali · « **Reply #676 on:** January 10, 2010, 10:32:46 AM »

gotoluc

may be the reply address is ali@wintrac.co.uk
please send me emails at winsonali@yahoo.com
i am no more using wintrac domain

winsonali · « **Reply #677 on:** January 10, 2010, 10:37:45 AM »

neha
thanks sure everyone will enjoy this vidoe
and up coming device

forest · « **Reply #678 on:** January 10, 2010, 10:39:31 AM »

Quote from: winsonali on January 09, 2010, 10:40:55 PM

yes its a very simple thing i am using IRF 740 or 840 and the capacitors are 330 UF 400 volts
but the time for switching is based on residual charges if you connect 2 parallel path Mosfet you can ensure fast switching by cross over timing

the Mirco-controller you are using is also an important factor now i am using FPGA quite complex but very power full.

i will open source the genie circuit once my new device is on the screen all those people who have this thinking that high frequency can fool the meter they are wrong.

i am trying to up load my new device probably 2 moro you will be very happy to see the new Winson Charge Accelerator. this is the name of the new device.

Mosfets are very nasty elements they blow up very quickly, don't forget to put 10 k resistance to ground on gate pin it will keep it always low level and it will not go in floating stage and once you applied voltage to gate, put 1 K so you will get 1:10 ratio divider and the current will be limitise and protect the Mosfet to an extent
this is my experience when you directly connect mosfet and source jumps from high to low the tri state condition applies this is the period when most of the mosfet blow up coz a source to drain current is flow and the gate came in floating stage any thing can happen to blow so connecting a high resistance to ground will always deter the floating stage.

winsonali

Is that a circuit of two mosfets in opposite directions like in image I attached ?

Nihilanth · « **Reply #679 on:** January 10, 2010, 11:57:25 AM »

I hope you don't mind my asking a few questions out of curiosity Ali;
How much output have you managed to get out of your self-running device thus far?
What are the cost estimates of the completed device, components and manufacturing?
How large is the device?
If you could answer some of these, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Earl · « **Reply #680 on:** January 10, 2010, 01:40:22 PM »

Winson,

edit: home page for Super Video Converter is:
http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html
Current version SUPER Â© v2010.build.37 (Jan 2, 2010)
one download location:
http://www.filehippo.com/download_super/

here are some comments from another thread:

I use Super like Stefan has suggested:
http://download.cnet.com/3001-2194_4-10277613.html?spi=9c02d478042d76a42f60c92869355434

Capture Full DV to computer, after edit (if needed) use Super to convert for Youtube upload. Make sure video is not more than 10 minutes.

Settings for Super, "output container" select: avi, "output video codec" select: H.264/AVC, "output audio codec" select: mp3.

Video scale size select: 320 x 240, [correction 720x576 for PAL]
aspect: 4:3,
frame/sec: 23.976, [correction: 25 frames/sec]
bitrate: 1008, [correction: 5000 to 8000 KBits/sec]
options: check mark in Hi quality box

Audio sampling Feq: 22050, Channels: 1, Bitrate: 96

Right click where you drop video and select where you want the converted file to be saved before you start and then drop or right click to select the video to be converted.

This will make a great quality file that will be just under 100mb and very compatible with Youtube codec so not too much loss will happen when they convert it.

Hope this helps. Luc

Luc,
it is 25 frames/sec in Europe, but 23,976 is for cinema movies only taken (shot) with old real film cameras.

For NTSC DV video source (interlaced TV video) keep 29.97 frames/sec, if you are in a PAL country like Europe keep 25 frames/sec.

Keep the original video frame size like 720x480 for NTSC or 720x576 for PAL and better go with about 5000 to 8000 KBits/sec for the videobitrate.
Then the video will be much clearer...
Youtube will Re-encode it anyway again to FLV format with their own settings, so it is important to upload the video already with a high quality.
Many thanks. Looking to see the real deal. Regards, Stefan.

Regards, Earl

gotoluc · « **Reply #681 on:** January 10, 2010, 04:39:37 PM »

Quote from: winsonali on January 10, 2010, 10:32:46 AM

gotoluc

may be the reply address is ali@wintrac.co.uk
please send me emails at winsonali@yahoo.com
i am no more using wintrac domain

Yes Ali, that is the problem.

I'll resend to the yahoo account.

Luc

gotoluc · « **Reply #682 on:** January 10, 2010, 04:57:24 PM »

Hi Earl,

the only correction that is needed in my suggested specifications is to use 25 frames/sec if you are in a country that is 220vac/50Hz grid. Other than that the other parameters will give a very good result for the file size. Using larger formats as others has suggested will make a very large file and take 5 or more times to upload and in the end the quality difference would be hardly noticeable.

I've been doing videos for years now on Youtube and tried it both ways and never saw a quality advantages of uploading a huge file. However they have recently made some changes for HD so it could be possible to obtain a slightly better quality then what I have been using but this would need to be tested. I was thinking of starting a topic to do these tests and compare the result in order to help new users use the best video settings to get a quality video without using a huge amount of upload bandwidth.

Anyways, Ali has already done videos so I don't think it will be a problem for him.

Luc

Earl · « **Reply #683 on:** January 10, 2010, 11:42:17 PM »

Hi Luc,

using the resolution as suggested by Harti results in 4 times the number of pixels, which makes a big difference in quality when watching the video on a local copy.

The quality of what Utube shows on the Web is of no importance. What is important is how the video looks after downloading and watching a *local* copy.

The only reason to be concerned about file size is if you have a modem connection, or have a very long line to the ADSL DSLAM. An average ADSL or cable connection can handle large video uploads. Codecs like DivX, mp4, and h.264 have qood quality and high compression factors. The upload runs in the background and the computer can still be used for other things. Tony, as a computer programmer, might have half a dozen computers, so upload time may not play any role at all.

Without having high quality videos, the Mylow saga would have lasted much longer. Lower quality videos simply do not show the details. As we know, a video is worth a million words and the replicators need as high a quality as reasonably possible.

I am confident that Tony knows his stuff and can provide quality videos.

One other aspect to consider is not letting Utube transcode to another format by uploading to mediafire.com where the video file can be downloaded without any conversions. Mediafire is an excellent site to store videos and easy to download from.

An additional advantage of using mediafire.com is that it forces people to download the file to a local copy in order to watch it. There is no single-point failure and having the video spread around the globe to local copies is a definite advantage in getting the word out.

Regards, Earl

gotoluc · « **Reply #684 on:** January 11, 2010, 12:56:18 AM »

For anyone believing that you can better video quality on YouTube by using lager video size and bitrate then I recommended you please have a look at this topic: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8628.msg221312#new

The results will surprise you and maybe help save bandwidth for your next video.

I took the time to make this topic to help people save time, so please don't post your personal opinions.

Luc

Earl · « **Reply #685 on:** January 11, 2010, 03:06:17 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on January 11, 2010, 12:56:18 AM

Luc>
For anyone believing that you can better video quality on YouTube by using lager video size and bitrate then I recommended you please have a look at this topic: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8628.msg221312#new

Earl>
"getting better video quality on YouTube" is not sufficiently precise. If you mean watching a video in a Web browser, no serious researcher gets info watching YouTube this way. They download the video with maximum possible resolution and study it via a local high resolution copy. This is why it is important to upload in the highest possible resolution. With ADSL or Cable connection and h.264 compression, upload time is not a major factor to consider.

Quote from: gotoluc on January 11, 2010, 12:56:18 AM

Luc>
The results will surprise you and maybe help save bandwidth for your next video.

Earl>
I am not surprised at all. I am well aware of h.264 video compression since roughly 6 years. The profi video compression experts consider h.264 to be a very good compression, perhaps the best at present. I use h.264 respectively x.264 video compression daily when telecommunicating with programs such as SIP-Communicator and Linphone.

Quote from: gotoluc on January 11, 2010, 12:56:18 AM

Luc>
I took the time to make this topic to help people save time, so please don't post your personal opinions.
Luc

Earl>
I will no longer post my opinions about your opinions on the thread that you started. I will, however, continue to post my opinions about your opinions on other threads.

1- videos to help replicators are particularly interesting if the device is a mechanical, non-solid-state apparatus. With explanation videos, the higher the resolution, the better. If tens of thousands of people can upload 1080p high res movies to YouTube, why should OU.com members stay with insane resolution of only 320 x 240 ? You are NOT helping by advising people to use the ridiculous 320 x 240 resolution.

2- In the case of solid-state devices, with no moving parts, it is questionable that videos are better than high-resolution photos. A 6 to 12 Mpx still photo, appropriately cropped, is a million times better than a crappy QVGA YouTube movie. The photographer, and the photographer alone, decides how much to resample in size, and how to crop in oder to reach the best compromise between image size and quality.

I do not believe it is in the interest of FE research to show children's movies at 320 x 240 stored on YouTube, when high-quality still photos and hi-res h.264 compressed videos can be easily up- and downloaded at another service, such as mediafire.com

It is in the interest of mankind to require a mandatory download in order to watch a FE video or still photos. This generates local copies all over the planet. Supporting the watching of videos on YouTube without a mandatory download is not in the interest of the FE movement. It only takes a millisecond to remove a video from YouTube.

Regards, Earl

Nihilanth · « **Reply #686 on:** January 14, 2010, 11:37:14 AM »

Where's the video?

aaron5120 · « **Reply #687 on:** January 15, 2010, 04:25:52 AM »

Quote from: Nihilanth on January 14, 2010, 11:37:14 AM

Where's the video?

It's coming! Be patient. Mr. Winsonali has promised us, he will deliver at due time.

aaron5120 · « **Reply #688 on:** January 16, 2010, 03:18:51 AM »

Hi Winsonali,
The soft iron concentrators for the mechanical generator are ready and have been put in place over the magnets. Please see attached photos. The wooden bases for the magnets and the pick up coils will be ready within a few days.
I am awaiting for the controller IC you kindly sent me several weeks ago, which still has not arrived yet. I wonder if it was being sent be air mail?

FatBird · « **Reply #689 on:** January 18, 2010, 02:35:22 AM »

Ali, The PRIZE MONEY is almost $16,000 now.

Please post one of your OverUnity Devices & collect the money.

PLEASE HELP THE WORLD in its Energy Crisis.

The WORLD needs you.

.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: New invention of motion less generation of electric power (Read 351035 times)

neha9243

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

winsonali

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

winsonali

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

forest

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Nihilanth

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Earl

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

gotoluc

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

gotoluc

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Earl

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

gotoluc

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Earl

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Nihilanth

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

aaron5120

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

aaron5120

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

FatBird

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power