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.

@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

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.

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.

Calculations say nothing. They can be wrong.

The only real proof for overunity is closing the loop.

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.

...
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.

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!