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.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83680
  • *Latest: dnz007

  • *Total Posts: 516054
  • *Total Topics: 15381
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency  (Read 34569 times)

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
"Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« on: January 27, 2010, 06:17:55 PM »
I'll try to post the more important updates here, but would rather spend most of my time blogging on all of my "tiny orbo replication" results at -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/tiny-orbo-replication/

Blog comments are now open, but please no trashing. Thanks.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2010, 02:18:33 AM »

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 05:32:53 PM »

@All

It's somewhat hard to build selfrunning systems with a gain of COP<3
(33% is Carnot Heat Engine Efficiency for a reasonable high side to room
temperature ratio) which is a really reasonable goal. The trick one can
use is to build two gain units in series acting in the same or
different conceptual dimensions to get required net COP>3. This
is one reasons pure electrical EMF overunity gain like this, is desirable.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 05:32:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2010, 04:39:07 PM »

A bunch more blogs, including my latest circuit (still in progress),

http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/tiny-orbo-replication/


Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2010, 08:45:04 PM »
Okay, now this circuit design I'm happy with -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/29/tiny-orbo-replication-2-circuit-in-progess-3/

btw, all of my recent designs have decaying current after the pulse peak. Sean has not addressed "decaying" currents per say, but he's said the current must be constant. I disagree, but we'll see. So this is essentially an experiment of mine, so if people want to stick to the 170% to 250% efficient design, then email me. Although hopefully today I can post the efficiency of this new circuit.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2010, 08:45:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2010, 11:48:18 AM »
A bunch more blogs, including my latest circuit (still in progress),

http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/tiny-orbo-replication/

Hi Paul,

I'm refering to:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/19/tiny-orbo-replication-170-efficient/

I'm pleased to find accurate measurements and calculus here. I perfectly agree with the method you are using to evaluate the COP.

Nevertheless I see a possible flaw in the data so I have a question: how do you estimate the coil inductance during pulse?

The inductance depends on both the magnet position and the current in the coil. From my own experiments, I found that the inductance can drastically change from one to less than one tenth with a coil current around 1 A, because the current participates in saturating the ferrite core.

At the begining of the pulse, the effect of the current onto the ferrite permeability is not yet established, thus inductance should be much higher than later and it will not change instantly. I'm afraid that we have to integrate 0.5*d(L*i²)/dt² over the pulse duration to get the right power instead of using a mean inductance value which is possibly irrelevant.

(PS- I also posted the same in the Steorn thread cause I had not seen this one).


Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2010, 03:00:10 PM »
I'm pleased to find accurate measurements and calculus here. I perfectly agree with the method you are using to evaluate the COP. Nevertheless I see a possible flaw in the data so I have a question: how do you estimate the coil inductance during pulse?

Hi,

The inductance was calculated from initial RL curve analysis when the magnet was at TDC. The current pulse followed a typical RL curve. The reason I'm comfortable that this is accurate enough for this measurements is based on a lot of variations in the coil applied voltage. Increasing the battery voltage by varying amounts would obviously increase the current RL curve. The increased voltage did not change the shape of the RL curve, but just the amplitude. For example, increasing the battery voltage by say 4 times would show the same RL curve, except 4 times the amplitude. As you know, during the initial part of an RL curve is mostly reactance, not resistance, and toward the end of the curve it's more resistance than reactance. This allowed me to see how linear the core was at varying levels of current at these *saturation* levels. I spent a great amount of time analyzing this core on the scope. It has two distinct modes. It's either incredibly high permeability, or low permeability. So it's very easy to see on the scope which part of the BH curve the core is in.

Another area to address is how far did the magnet move during this current pulse. As you can see in the blog post, the magnet was rotating at 26.5 revolutions per second, which comes to 0.57 degrees of movement in 100us, which comes to 0.005" (0.01cm) movement.

So to summarize what was occurring to the core -->

1. The magnet moves to TDC.

2. Voltage is applied to the coil.

3. There is a *brief* period where the core is in ultra high permeability. This was seen in the scope where di/dt was lower then I could detect, and the current was near zero amps. Regardless how much I amplified the signal, it was a flat as a pancake, ~ 0 amps, and understandably so given this cores.

4. All of a sudden the core switches to low permeability as the hits the roof of the square BH curve. This is where nearly *all* of the energy goes into decreasing the cores magnetic attraction toward the magnets. The changes in the cores ultra high permeability have no measurable changes in the core to magnet attraction. So during this phase the core's permeability was relatively linear relative to current.

5. The current reaches its near max of the RL curve due to electrical resistance. At this point we're still appreciably less than 100us, and the magnet is still close to TDC.


So that's why I used the inductance equation of E = 1/2 * L * I^2 because the cores permeability at that current level and cores saturation level was appreciably linear far above 1.26 amps. Furthermore, my COP 1.7 measurement did not even consider how much of that energy could have been recaptured. It is my opinion that at that area of the BH curve (in the saturation area), the core would be relatively linear with or without the magnet. If true, then a large amount of that energy that went into inductance could be recaptured, which would increase the COP measurements.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2010, 03:00:10 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2010, 04:33:20 PM »
Hey Paul

Nice lil Orbaby. =] Here is a thing to try that i have not seen yet. If you have 4 mags on the rotor, try 3 toroids in series next to each other and have them fire of one at a time one after another. Or even 3 at triangle points around the rotor. I know that 2 more pulses per rotation will mean more input, BUT, if it moves faster the pulses will be shorter and you just might get more for your money here. And if it is going faster for the same input, a charge coil will have more effect at generating to replace what is taken.
I thought about it last night and others are just pulsing all coil at the same time. This might give an advantage.

Orbonomics.

Mags

Offline skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2010, 09:52:17 PM »
Calculations say nothing. They can be wrong.

The only real proof for overunity is closing the loop.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2010, 09:52:17 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2010, 12:16:14 AM »
Calculations say nothing.

Calculations on got us to moon. Calculations put & keep satellites in orbit. Calculations create nanoscopic technology such as your CPU's. Calculations predict the nuclear energy for Nuclear power plants. Calculations predicted blackholes before they were discovered. Calculations predicted the exact amount that light would bend around the Sun for Einsteins monumental Solar eclipse experiment. Calculations are used for everything in the modern world, including the amount of energy your home uses.

Offline skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2010, 12:47:14 AM »
Calculations on got us to moon. Calculations put & keep satellites in orbit. Calculations create nanoscopic technology such as your CPU's. Calculations predict the nuclear energy for Nuclear power plants. Calculations predicted blackholes before they were discovered. Calculations predicted the exact amount that light would bend around the Sun for Einsteins monumental Solar eclipse experiment. Calculations are used for everything in the modern world, including the amount of energy your home uses.

That's right... but physical calculations are based on models, which are based on the physical laws as we know them. These physical laws say that things like 'overunity' are not possible. This does not mean that they are really impossible, but they are impossible within the boundaries set by the physical laws. But this means also that any calculation based on these laws, which results in overunity, must be wrong. It's logically impossible.

So the only proof for overunity can be experimental proof.

I have often seen calculations or even input/output measurements which showed 300% or more overunity for some devices. But they all failed to close the loop, which should be absolutely no problem when you have 300% OU.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2010, 12:47:14 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2010, 11:25:46 AM »
....
So that's why I used the inductance equation of E = 1/2 * L * I^2 because the cores permeability at that current level and cores saturation level was appreciably linear far above 1.26 amps. Furthermore, my COP 1.7 measurement did not even consider how much of that energy could have been recaptured.
...

Thank you for the detailed explanations. It is exactly the kind of reply I was waiting for. I see no more flaw.
Now we all know that a COP>1 is extraordinary and we have to exclude any possible doubt. The coil is powered by a signal of 0.36v*1.26A=453mW. You calculated the part of this power not dissipated in the resistance and found 2.52mW. Thus the usefull power is only 0.55% of the power provided by the battery. We see that an even very small error could have a huge consequence onto the calculated COP.
Would it not be possible the replace the calculation of the usefull power by a measurement?
We know U, I of the pulse and R of the coil. L is not constant but R is. Then by substracting R*I² from the power U*I provided by the battery, the exact power not dissipated in the resistance can be measured instead of being calculated from assumptions on L. I know it is difficult because accurate measurements of instantaneous U/I values during the pulse are required, but if it confirmed the same power than that calculated, it would put the result beyond any doubt.



Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2010, 12:27:48 PM »
...
These physical laws say that things like 'overunity' are not possible. This does not mean that they are really impossible, but they are impossible within the boundaries set by the physical laws.
...

Biased assertion, it is right only for machines of the first kind.
Even the second law of thermodynamics is regularly challenged by "official" physicists because they know that it is a statistical law not true at nano-scales.
And there is always the third kind machine, using a possible hidden energy source.
Type 2 and 3 would be compatible with fundamental physics laws.


Offline skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2010, 02:34:09 PM »
I agree, but for example you can not make calculations if your machine uses an hidden/unknown energy source, because this energy source is not contained in the formulas.

It is not possible to prove OU by using textbook calculations.

Offline PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2010, 03:29:59 PM »
The coil is powered by a signal of 0.36v*1.26A=453mW.

The 1.26A is pulse *peak*, no DC. The duty cycle is ~ 12.5%, so the losses in electrical resistance was 57mW, not 453mW. Again, that is electrical resistance losses.


You calculated the part of this power not dissipated in the resistance and found 2.52mW. Thus the usefull power is only 0.55% of the power provided by the battery.

If we included wire losses as the input, and *excluded* heating as output, then it would 7.3% efficient, but a good scientist would *first* focus on detecting *excess* energy, and then focus on trying to get a self-runner. If we include the heat produced by electrical wires losses, then the efficiency is 103%. If we're trying to focus on detecting excess energy, then the best way is to exclude the electrical wire resistance, which then comes to 170% efficiency.

Remember, the toroid was using hardly none of the maximum wire that could fit in the toroid, so the electrical resistance would be considerably lower. Also, if the circuit was smarter, it would require magnitudes less voltage to maintain that 1.26 amps. Those are design issues I have already solved in LTspice, and will implement in the "Tiny Orbo Replication 2," where the electrical wire losses will be considerably lower than the input.



We see that an even very small error could have a huge consequence onto the calculated COP.

Only if the equations contain the 57mW wire losses. That is why I spent considerably time verifying that the core permeability was appreciably constant even above 1.26A, which greatly simplified the input equation to E = 1/2 * L * I^2. So the way I did the calculations there is no small error to make a huge difference. Although I'm not saying there's a 100% guarantee there's no errors.



Would it not be possible the replace the calculation of the usefull power by a measurement?
We know U, I of the pulse and R of the coil. L is not constant but R is.

In a recent post I went over how L is appreciably constant above 1.26A.



Then by substracting R*I² from the power U*I provided by the battery, the exact power not dissipated in the resistance can be measured instead of being calculated from assumptions on L.

Sure, there are a lot of ways of calculating it, but that method would require far more accurate measurements since the electrical wire losses are ~ 20 times higher than the inductance losses.



I know it is difficult because accurate measurements of instantaneous U/I values during the pulse are required, but if it confirmed the same power than that calculated, it would put the result beyond any doubt.

Well, after spending days doing scope measurements, I've already satisfied myself that the calculations are correct and accurate enough. Although of course there could be errors, but I'm past that, to the point of now working on making a self-runner that will operate from a relatively small capacitor. Batteries not allowed!  :)


 

OneLink