Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: PaulLowrance on January 27, 2010, 06:17:55 PM

Title: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/tag/tiny-orbo-replication/)

Blog comments are now open, but please no trashing. Thanks.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on January 28, 2010, 02:18:33 AM
Today's work, including a new YouTube video,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/27/todays-tiny-orbo-replication-work/
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman 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
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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/

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: exnihiloest 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).

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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.

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Magluvin 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
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: skywatcher 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.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: skywatcher 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.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: exnihiloest 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.


Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: exnihiloest 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.

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: skywatcher 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.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance 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!  :)

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on January 31, 2010, 03:31:30 PM
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.

Well said!

The equations I am using are not theoretical. They are well tested. The main equation being for the energy in indutance, E = 1/2 L I^2.  Although that is not to say my measurements are accurate enough, or that the core inductance was constant enough, but if one could witness all of my scope measurements, testing, and detailed analysis of the Metglas MAGAMP core they might be satisfied as I am. So the next step is a self-runner.

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 01, 2010, 05:08:07 PM
btw, it seems pointless to question such basic 101 electronics equations such as I = V / R, V = I * R, P = I^2 * R. To do so would mean one could not even trust a simple digital multimeter.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Paul-R on February 01, 2010, 05:19:52 PM
btw, it seems pointless to question such basic 101 electronics equations such as I = V / R, V = I * R, P = I^2 * R. To do so would mean one could not even trust a simple digital multimeter.
You can't trust a digital multimeter with cold electricity.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: exnihiloest on February 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
...
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!  :)

It is the best method. Only an obvious experiment can definitely close such a discussion. Good luck!

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 01, 2010, 05:38:22 PM
You can't trust a digital multimeter with cold electricity.

Well see for certain when cold electricity is proven, but such 101 Electronics equations show that there is at least that amount of power. So you're correct that there might be even more power than what Steorn demonstrated in yesterdays Talks.  :)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 01, 2010, 07:07:40 PM

I received my Enermax Marathon PC fan that according to the ebay ad is supposed to be "friction-free" due to magnets.  What a waste of $8!  -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: jadaro2600 on February 02, 2010, 04:57:56 AM
I received my Enermax Marathon PC fan that according to the ebay ad is supposed to be "friction-free" due to magnets.  What a waste of $8!  -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/)

haha, a friction free fan wouldn't cause air to move.

- - -

I think that it would be a good idea to post some images of your setup rather than your circuit diagrams - this may help replicators a little.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Bruce_TPU on February 02, 2010, 06:57:37 AM
I received my Enermax Marathon PC fan that according to the ebay ad is supposed to be "friction-free" due to magnets.  What a waste of $8!  -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/)

Hey Paul, I wonder if your latest circuit would work driving my four toroids in series?  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Bruce
http://energyfreedomreport.com
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 02, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
haha, a friction free fan wouldn't cause air to move.

Actually they claimed friction-free *bearings*. What a joke. More like massive friction bearings.


I think that it would be a good idea to post some images of your setup rather than your circuit diagrams - this may help replicators a little.

How about 3 youtube videos since Jan. 16, 2010?  ;)

World's Tiniest Steorn "Orbo replication", January 16, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6erWHYSHSs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6erWHYSHSs)

World's Tiniest Steorn "Orbo replication" - Flat current pulse, January 17, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u10do21JLAQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u10do21JLAQ)

Today's work on "Tiny Orbo Replication 2", January 27, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z-AhflaoVA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z-AhflaoVA)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 02, 2010, 03:29:51 PM
Hey Paul, I wonder if your latest circuit would work driving my four toroids in series?  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Bruce
http://energyfreedomreport.com (http://energyfreedomreport.com)

It depends on total inductance of all four toroids when they are well into the saturation curve, and your machines rpm. The circuit takes the energy put into the toroid and uses it sustain the current pulse as the magnet moves away. Well, at least it supposed to maintain the current. According to LTspice I should expect ~ 10% decay in current at 15,000 rpm with one toroid, and possibly less decay with two toroids. The circuit is for high rpm designs. I know, Sean says the current needs to be constant, but I don't buy that. Well see about that with my new design.  :)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Paul-R on February 02, 2010, 05:12:37 PM
I received my Enermax Marathon PC fan that according to the ebay ad is supposed to be "friction-free" due to magnets.  What a waste of $8!  -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/01/enermax-marathon-pc-fan/)
Magnetic bearings are standard issue in some industries:
http://www.skf.com/portal/skf_rev/home

It may be that there are minimum shaft speeds for good operation
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 02, 2010, 05:18:12 PM
Thanks for the link. Those are active magnetic levitation  bearings. Do you know where to buy passive magnetic levitation bearings?

Btw, the ones in the $8 fan are by now means magnetic levitation bearings. It's just a marketing stunt.

One idea is to just get a ring magnet where the magnetic field goes inward, and get another another smaller ring magnet where the field goes outward, place the smaller ring magnet on a plastic rod, make another inner / outer ring magnet and place that at the other end of the rod, and you have a passive magnetic levitation bearing!  :)   Problem is, where do you buy such ring magnets.

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 02, 2010, 05:28:14 PM
Has anyone seen this fun little toy, the Levitron

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv8msBamA3M

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: gravityblock on February 02, 2010, 06:11:14 PM
Thanks for the link. Those are active magnetic levitation  bearings. Do you know where to buy passive magnetic levitation bearings?

Btw, the ones in the $8 fan are by now means magnetic levitation bearings. It's just a marketing stunt.

One idea is to just get a ring magnet where the magnetic field goes inward, and get another another smaller ring magnet where the field goes outward, place the smaller ring magnet on a plastic rod, make another inner / outer ring magnet and place that at the other end of the rod, and you have a passive magnetic levitation bearing!  :)   Problem is, where do you buy such ring magnets.

I found these ring magnets in the automotive section at Wal-mart. It is packaged as a 6" magnetic parts tray with a rubber case to protect the magnet and to prevent marring of surfaces, for less than $6.00 each.  The ring magnets are axially magnetized.  You still need the smaller ring magnets, but it shouldn't be a problem to find some to match the dimensions of these larger ring magnets.  If it doesn't work, then you'll have the ring magnets for other projects.


GB
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: neptune on February 02, 2010, 06:59:42 PM
There are loads of cheap ring magnets from the magnetrons of old microwave ovens . Always short out/discharge the high voltage cap  before working on microwaves.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 02, 2010, 08:02:58 PM
Thanks for resources!

BTW, just tested the circuit and it's working better than expected. When the magnet is at top dead center, the circuit pulses the toroid coil for ~ 10us, then the circuit immediately shorts the toroid to maintain such current as long as possible as the magnet escapes the toroid. This method allows the energy stored in inductance to be used as useful energy to appreciably maintain the current pulse. Note, this method is for designs that rotate well above 10000 rpm.

This means it should be no problem to self-run. Lets hope Sean is wrong about the current pulse having to be constant.

I doubt any company will patent this circuit, but just to be safe and so it will remain open-source could as many people as possible down load the circuit file -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/imgs/tiny%20orbo%20replication%202gb.png (http://globalfreeenergy.info/imgs/tiny%20orbo%20replication%202gb.png)

Thanks
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 02, 2010, 08:29:20 PM

Btw, the ones in the $8 fan are by now means magnetic levitation bearings. It's just a marketing stunt.


Well designed, well manufactured, unloaded electric motors seems to
"levitate" their rotors into the center their bearings as a matter of
course. This sounds like a marketing freebee to me too. They may
have to balance their fans a little better than normal to do this.

---

There are a couple of companies with videos on youtube that seem
to specialize in magnetic levitation for control purposes. They seem
to be able to do all sorts of amazing motion control, as long as one
is willing to include a strong magnet into the object being controlled.

---

@Paul-L

I have continued interest in your "tiny orbo" repliocation.

:SMarkSCoffman

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Magluvin on February 02, 2010, 10:54:31 PM
heres one thats big and tiny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrtGzxOKpwQ

Mags
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 03, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
Nice start of a replication Mags. Eventually you'll get the losses down. That might require different toroids or a lot more turns. In my "tiny orbo replication 2" there are ~ 170 turns on the toroid.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 03, 2010, 05:01:55 PM

An new and improved circuit,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/03/improved-circuit-tiny-orbo-replication-2/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/03/improved-circuit-tiny-orbo-replication-2/)

Please download.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: armagdn03 on February 03, 2010, 08:48:40 PM
I like your style Mr Lowrance
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Paul-R on February 04, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Thanks for the link. Those are active magnetic levitation  bearings. Do you know where to buy passive magnetic levitation bearings?
SKF may well make them as well. If so, why not ask them to send you a few for appraisal?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 04, 2010, 08:25:48 PM
Hi,

Four new blog posts today -->

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

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 07, 2010, 04:53:19 PM

"Tiny Orbo Replication 2" update
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/07/tiny-orbo-replication-2-update/
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: teslaalset on February 07, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
"Tiny Orbo Replication 2" update
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/07/tiny-orbo-replication-2-update/

Thanks for sharing, Paul,
Vingers crossed until first trial ;)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 07, 2010, 07:57:45 PM
A new thread on MOSFET driver recommendations,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8748
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 11, 2010, 03:39:23 PM

Some big news from yesterdays "Tiny Orbo Replication 2"  ;D   -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/11/tiny-orbo-replication-major-update/

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: teslaalset on February 11, 2010, 04:26:21 PM
Some big news from yesterdays "Tiny Orbo Replication 2"  ;D   -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/11/tiny-orbo-replication-major-update/

That tickles my curiosity.
Can you show some of your DSO measurements?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 11, 2010, 05:00:44 PM
Some big news from yesterdays "Tiny Orbo Replication 2"  ;D   -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/11/tiny-orbo-replication-major-update/

@Paul

On the vibration Tiny Orbo is experiencing. I notice that the
case-frame of the Steorn Orbo seems really stiff, It kind of
reminds me of a truck wheel hub in lucite plastic.

It would seem that high RPM's are somewhat the enemy of the "tiny"
moniker. Can't you slow the rep. rate down with an intentional delay
or pulse dropping (count division)? That way you can leave the
high RPM's for the future when you can machine-turn the motor's
rotor ect.? I'd be concerned that the high rep rate might cover up
an effect, as maximum RPM's is really a form of saturation - a trade
off of forces. Pulse dropping would not slow circuit reaction time
which should probably be as fast as you have tuned it for.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 11, 2010, 05:28:48 PM
Hi mscoffman,

You mean decrease the rpm? Sure, that's easy by lowering the voltage. The stage now is the find ways to decrease the losses so get a self-runner.

Steorn is using plastic, which is probably what I should eventually use, or some type of ceramic. What would be the hardest, yet affordable, plastic or ceramic?

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 11, 2010, 05:29:59 PM
That tickles my curiosity.
Can you show some of your DSO measurements?

Sure, soon enough I'll show lots of measurements on video.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 11, 2010, 09:07:36 PM
Hi mscoffman,

You mean decrease the rpm? Sure, that's easy by lowering the voltage. The stage now is the find ways to decrease the losses so get a self-runner.

Steorn is using plastic, which is probably what I should eventually use, or some type of ceramic. What would be the hardest, yet affordable, plastic or ceramic?

Yes, to scale back the internal energy, without changing circuit drive
characteristics. Plastic is machinable, Ceramics are stronger, plastic has
larger thermal expansion characteristics as Steorn found out in his first
attempts. I kind of like glass for a PM machine. One would slide the guts
of the device into internal slots, once one knows what he is doing. (and
can afford the thermal molds.) They are satisfying for MIBS to smash,
and yet you can always reach around and pull out another one. ;)

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 04:26:39 AM
Any ideas where to get the lowest friction bearings? A hard drive?  VCR?  CD player?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 05:00:48 AM
These guys claim to have the best low friction bearings, but don't see any price sheet,


http://www.microblueracing.com
http://www.microblueracing.com/bearing_central/bearing_chart.php
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: renaud67 on February 12, 2010, 09:24:35 AM
there, for instance :
http://www.microblueracing.com/store/index.php?cPath=68_51 (http://www.microblueracing.com/store/index.php?cPath=68_51)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: wings on February 12, 2010, 11:13:53 AM
hd motor have stepper that give no smooth movement.

for me VCR.

If the load and weight is not critical try bearing stone
http://www.adamant-kogyo.com/products/precision-components/clock/

a complete system in the old energy meter:

http://www.kanabona.com/kanabona/?q=energy_ceb_energy_meter_1979

or single ball bearing

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0355-0903-0903-1730.html

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 02:53:10 PM
there, for instance :
http://www.microblueracing.com/store/index.php?cPath=68_51 (http://www.microblueracing.com/store/index.php?cPath=68_51)

Those are their large bearings. What about the tiny ones?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
I wonder what kind of bearings are in these,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd2QxgJUfkE&feature=related

One thing that helps is most of the weight is on the outer perimeter, and large radius.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 12, 2010, 04:42:00 PM
Those are their large bearings. What about the tiny ones?

Look at these two ceramic hobby bearing links:

Try the RC hobby section: jet turbines; They have some
8x9x27mm, this is small, I believe. These probably are not
optimal for you application but shows what can be done
spec. wise. I've heard that the very best bearings for
skateboarding are of the ceramic type.

http://www.bocabearings.com/main1.aspx?p=docs&id=16&source=adwords

http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/8mm/2ISB-1

Enter: "roller skate bearings ceramic" into google. Get some
Teflon based lube too. You are going to have to have your
rotor balanced before any ball bearings can work well. Sleeve
bearings may be a better choice if you have continued high
vibrational loading.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 04:42:46 PM
Another bearing demo,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzlRp7z-y-w
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 05:18:26 PM
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/8mm/2ISB-1 (http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/8mm/2ISB-1)

Looks like *full* ceramic bearings cost a lot more, but I don't see any place that says they're better. Dry lubricant seems to have the lowest COF (coefficient of resistance). Sounds like the way to go. Too bad there's no inexpensive passive magnetic levitation bearings.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
[delete]
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: lostcauses10x on February 12, 2010, 07:16:13 PM
The bearing situation is for the radial variations. Any is supposedly CEMF.
This is the reason they go with the passive magnetic bearings.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 12, 2010, 08:04:22 PM

Too bad there's no inexpensive passive magnetic levitation bearings.


@Paul-L

This link looks valid from google;

---

http://www.ppactech.com/bearing-info.htm

Pacific Pac Technologies
5300 Orange Ave. Suite 117
Cypress, Ca. 90630

Quoted:
We have enjoyed rich experiences in producing both ABB & GE
Company's MTB and MSB according to their original drawings
and f8 & M8 MTB, which are popular in Chinese traditional
kilowatt hour meter
market.

---

msb= magnetic sleeve bearing?
mtb= magnetic thrust bearing?


:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 12, 2010, 08:06:47 PM
deleted dupilcate post
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 08:56:52 PM
If we could find 4 radially magnetized ring magnets (poles are at inner & outer part of ring), and a few normal magnets (axially magnetized), then it shouldn't be too difficult to make magnetic levitation.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 12, 2010, 10:22:52 PM
Here's some radially magnetized magnets, a bit large and too expensive for me, $50 each

http://www.magnetechinc.com/pi1193762717.htm?categoryId=15



Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: supersam on February 13, 2010, 03:18:33 AM
!!!!i've seen the light!

those videos of the mag bearings were great! try it you never know!  you might even want to, watch out for the rodin coil!

lol
sam





















1
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 13, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
I wonder which ceramic ball bearing has the lowest friction,

ABEC-5
http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=kit7955&Store_Code=bearings (http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=kit7955&Store_Code=bearings)

or

ABEC #1
http://www.bocabearings.com/main1.aspx?p=product&id=6827&n=#YCWK83-YZZ_AF2 (http://www.bocabearings.com/main1.aspx?p=product&id=6827&n=#YCWK83-YZZ_AF2)


One is ABEC-5, and the other is ABEC #1, whatever that means.


btw, yesterday I discovered that one of my ball bearings will fit inside a larger one. By rotating it by hand the outer one does not spin because there's not enough force on it, but I'd bet it would spin at high rpm's, which should help reduce the friction that much more.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 13, 2010, 05:29:44 PM
I wonder which ceramic ball bearing has the lowest friction,

One is ABEC-5, and the other is ABEC #1, whatever that means.


btw, yesterday I discovered that one of my ball bearings will fit inside a larger one. By rotating it by hand the outer one does not spin because there's not enough force on it, but I'd bet it would spin at high rpm's, which should help reduce the friction that much more.



ABEC number (odd integers only, higher is better) strictly represent (an average)
tolerance of all three dimensions of bearing. Not other stuff, which is more probably
important to bearing operation.

Ceramic balls are harder and 30% lighter then steel, so they can withstand higher RPM
due to centripetal forces not damaging the outer race.

Lubrication is important so in sealed bearing one is probably going to need
to specify the application.

Found these in the following official article link;

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&00no0052&ME&20001107&&SME&#article

---

As to the compound bearings in the videos, I notice that too.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 13, 2010, 05:52:14 PM
ABEC number (odd integers only, higher is better) strictly represent (an average)
tolerance of all three dimensions of bearing.

Then that would make this the better choice of the two,
ABEC-5
http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=kit7955&Store_Code=bearings (http://www.vxb.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=kit7955&Store_Code=bearings)

It says it's good to 100,000 rpm. Yeah, I could just imagine the "tiny orbo replication" spinning at 100,000 rpm, lol. Suuuurrrrre!  ;D    That would be something else. It's possible because it's only 1.1" OD.


I agree, lubrication seems very important. Since my application is for light forces on the bearing (hopefully), then a light weight lubrication is better. Is it difficult to remove the lubrication cap, remove the factory lubrication, and apply different lubrication?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 13, 2010, 05:56:32 PM
I'm telling you right now, if I had a magnetic levitation bearing that was good to 20,000 rpm, it would be easy to make a self-runner!
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 13, 2010, 06:52:03 PM
It's amazing what difference between ball bearing and ball bearing. I just extracted another ball bearing from a CPU fan. This was from a massive fancy fan for a high end CPU. Well, at least in it's day. The ball bearing looks in good shape, but it seems that the lubrication is too thick because the "tiny orbo replication 2" can't even run. Although it's by far the quietest of all the ball bearings. I can hardly hear it. The best ball bearing so far is the noisiest, sounding like sand paper.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 13, 2010, 10:22:01 PM

This pdf says adding grease or oil to ball bearings will make it go slower,

http://www.championballbearings.com/A_New_Ball_Bearing.pdf
Quote
A popular misconception is that by adding grease or oil to a ball bearing it will go faster
when in reality the opposite is true. It will slow it down. Why? To put it simply,
“kinematic viscosity.�
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 14, 2010, 01:30:06 AM

Well, the old dead 1st ball bearing was just revived by opening it up and removing all of the grease. Wow, it's as quiet as a church mouse, and is doing better than the best one so far.  ;D

I think grease is best for heavier loads. In the case of the "tiny orbo replication," it's as light as a feather. So maybe no lubrication is best for lowest friction.
 
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 14, 2010, 01:37:44 AM
forgot to mention that the current pulse was decreased to 12 degrees while advancing it a bit, which made hardly no difference in rpm. So that cut the electrical resistance losses by nearly half.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 14, 2010, 06:01:13 AM

 Latest YouTube video update on my "Tiny Orbo Replication 2"
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tMRjpN0t3o
 
 
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 14, 2010, 06:20:34 AM
[wrong thread]
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 15, 2010, 05:00:27 PM

Passive magnetic levitation bearing idea,

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/15/passive-magnetic-levitation-bearing/

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 15, 2010, 11:47:17 PM

Ok...obviously removing lubrication will speed the bearing
up initially, but the cost is faster bearing race wear which
may not be a problem initially. Also, I expect the unit will
be subjected to very little mechanical shock initially which
is a bearing race wear problem also mitigated by the lubricant.

I think the powerful vibration the occurs in a device has to
do with "finite element analysis of rotating members"
with the fact that vibration causes a shift in the center
of gravity of a complex shaped rotating mass as viewed
from outside. (even if the mass is perfectly stiff) the vibration
occurs because a source excites a vibration that only occurs
when it exciting force exceeds the z-axis rotational momentum of the
rotor mass. So the rotational momentum act as resisting force,
but not as a damping force. What this means is that the
bearing lubricant is the primary damping force trying to
kill off the random force excitations before they build up and
start the rotor vibrating, enhanced only at certain RPM's.
So I think you are going to have luck with your device
but as it goes through various resonant RPM's it will show
a tendency for large scale vibrations. This occurs because
the rotor shape is not necessarily how one would want it to be
theoretically. That is, a stiff shaft with rotational symmetry and
top to bottom symmetry through the middle, with a bearing at
each end of the shaft.

This damping force is primary only lenz magnetic forces in passive
magnetic bearings

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 03:44:41 PM

Cool, I thought of a way (an obvious method) to make radially magnetized ring magnets out of common cube magnets, and hence magnetic levitation bearings,  :)

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/16/simple-magnetic-levitation-bearings/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/02/16/simple-magnetic-levitation-bearings/)

Is this now when they send the Thugs to bury me 6 feet under to prevent a self-runner?  I've been ready for that for years now. Looking forward to catching me some thugs to hand over to the authorities.  ;D
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: 0c on February 16, 2010, 05:31:09 PM
Cool, I thought of a way (an obvious method) to make radially magnetized ring magnets out of common cube magnets, and hence magnetic levitation bearings,  :)

Good thinking, Paul. But why not use arc segments? I think you'll find the field will be more uniform.
http://www.supermagnetman.net/index.php?cPath=37&page=3
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 06:10:39 PM
Good thinking, Paul. But why not use arc segments? I think you'll find the field will be more uniform.
http://www.supermagnetman.net/index.php?cPath=37&page=3 (http://www.supermagnetman.net/index.php?cPath=37&page=3)

Hi,

I believe those arc magnets are aligned lengthwise, which is in the wrong direction. I'm sure someone magnetizes arc magnets in the thin height / inward direction, but they're definitely uncommon. Let me know if you find any at a good price.

Yesterday I bought 500 tiny 1/16" cube NdFeB magnets for practically nothing, like $8. That should be enough to make the levitation bearing and also the new designed "Self running Orbo Replication."  :)

Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: 0c on February 16, 2010, 06:33:09 PM
I believe those arc A are aligned lengthwise, which is in the wrong direction.

Nope, they're magnetized just the way you want them. You need to buy 2 sets, though, because they are alternating polarity, half with N pole inside and the other half with S pole inside.

I have a couple sets and have already built 2 magnetic bearings with them, very much like you suggest. But even with these, it's not as simple as you might think. It handles the radial loads nicely, but not the axial load.

Give George a call. He's a helluva nice guy and will answer any questions you might have.

Contact for George Mizzell: http://www.supermagnetman.net/contact_us.php
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 07:04:27 PM
I agree that each neighbor would have to be oppositely polarized in order to stick like that unglued.

So this is what you recommend,

Two of these (can only hope it's correct because image is broken):
OD=15.9mm, $3.50*2 = $7
http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=960 (http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=960)

OD=31.94mm, $3.50*2 = $7
http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=323 (http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=323)

So that makes both ends for $14?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 07:21:09 PM
It's difficult to tell how many segments are included.  Very few are clear. For example the following item says, "Price is per set of four pieces," but it's $9.75,

http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=1370
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 07:22:10 PM
This item shows 6 segments, yet the text says, "Arc segments for motor - OD-31.94mm, ID-27.94mm, 6mm wide. 12 pcs to make a circle. 1 Set includes 14 magnets (1 extra for each pole up to 4 sets)."  So what's the price for a "set"?

http://www.supermagnetman.net/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=323
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: 0c on February 16, 2010, 07:40:41 PM
It's difficult to tell how many segments are included.  Very few are clear.

As I said above, contact George. He will happily answer any questions you might have. I bought mine a couple years ago from his "clearance" page and they are no longer listed. I don't have any personal knowledge about the magnets listed right now.

Here again is his contact information:
http://www.supermagnetman.net/contact_us.php

ETA: You can also watch hs videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperMagnetMan#p/u

Some of them are very educational.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 07:56:25 PM
Oc, can you show a video of your magnetic levitation bearings spinning?
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: 0c on February 16, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Oc, can you show a A of your magnetic levitation bearings spinning?

I don't have anything that does something useful, just a crude proof-of-concept juryrig setup that I assembled in a bench vice. All I have is 2 wooden blocks with bored holes and arc magnets glued into the holes, N poles in one block and S poles in the other.

For testing, I placed the blocks into a bench vice and used a 3" long rod magnet as a spindle. I held the rod magnet in the center and tightened the vice until the ends of the rod stabilzed in the center of the ring. It worked but was axially unstable. Just a slight axial force and the spindle would shoot through until it was forced against the bottom of the hole.

I haven't put the effort into it to stabilize things to make it usable, and haven't touched it for a couple years. But I'm confident there is some way to stabilize it.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 08:31:04 PM
I'd image that if the inner ring is too small compared to the outer ring, then it would shoot out a lot easier. If the inner ring is too close to the size of the outer ring, then it will probably will be unstable radially. Somewhere there's probably a good balance ratio. Not sure what that ratio would be. Personally I don't have $50 to gamble on getting it correct the 1st time.  :'(
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 16, 2010, 08:37:36 PM
It's been decades since I've dabbled into this field, but here's what I've come up with so far in terms of what material to use to hold the magnets & bearing together. Would you believe balsa wood, lol?

Tensile Strength (MPa):

Balsa (high density, somewhat common):    32.2 MPa, 0.225 g/cm3, 143 ratio
Balsa (medium density, common):    19.9 MPa, 0.15 g/cm3, 133 ratio
Balsa (ultra low density, uncommon):    7.6 MPa, 0.075 g/cm3, 101 ratio
Douglas fir Wood:    50 MPa, 0.51 g/cm3, 98 ratio
Pine wood:        40 MPa, 0.50 g/cm3, 80 ratio
Nylon:            75 MPa, 1.15 g/cm3, 65 ratio
Acrylic:        70 MPa, 1.2 g/cm3, 58 ratio
ABS plastic:        40 MPa, 1.06 g/cm3, 38 ratio

First is tensile strength. Next is density. The, "ratio" is the tensile strength divided by density-- higher number the better.

Of course there are a lot better materials. That carbon fiber high tech space-age stuff, whatever it's called, but I don't have the $ to buy it.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 17, 2010, 06:41:41 AM
Paul:

Why don't you explain to these folks that you are going to patent and sell everything you learn here on OU.com?  You are gleaning info from some very smart folks only to file for a patent so you can then sell the device.

Please explain why you are on an OPEN SOURCE site doing this?

If you call me a liar once more, I will post here all of your posts that support my statements.  I have them all documented.

Bill
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 17, 2010, 09:36:08 AM

Like I've said for years, no offense Stefan, but this forum would be the LAST forum in the world I would post the Smoking Gun, a self-runner, for obvious reasons. Anyone who does not know the reasons, please contact me in private.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 17, 2010, 04:38:13 PM
Please explain why you are on an OPEN SOURCE site doing this?

You are a liar. I have posted at this forum your lies. You pasted a fraction of a sentence from my websites public statement, and you even had to offer your sick interpretation to make that fractional sentence seem bad. You did not even provide a link or snapshot of my public statement.

I showed your lie by showing a google cache of my public statement webpage that google showed was taken back in dec. 2009 that says -->

"I have never asked or accepted money for my research. I will not accept money or be bought out. I will continue the research until the exact detailed designs to replicate a “Free Energy machine” is in public hands and wide spread. Then, and only then will I start a company to market and sell such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own. My full 100% intent is to help this world as much as possible"

Poor pirate, such a low life, lol.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: mscoffman on February 17, 2010, 04:49:26 PM
Paul:

Why don't you explain to these folks that you are going to patent and sell everything you learn here on OU.com?  You are gleaning info from some very smart folks only to file for a patent so you can then sell the device.

Please explain why you are on an OPEN SOURCE site doing this?

If you call me a liar once more, I will post here all of your posts that support my statements.  I have them all documented.

Bill

My view are that patents are largely useless...Except for large
corporations that already know what they want to do, but if
Paul_L wants to give it try I think he should be allowed to have
a go at it. Paul is a very good researcher and seems to put out
information of everything about a project he as is learning,
educating others in the process, including me. I know his
experimental techniques are valid as we have seen in the
past. He thinks like an electrical engineer.

I have a problem with people with so much vested interest that
they can't even explain why they are saying, what they are saying
even when pressed. Or people that refuse to communicate at all
even though communication is being directed directly to them.

So Pirate you are saying is really not making sense. If patents work
then Paul_L has a dark side in trying to achieve them at others expense
but if patents don't work then he would be just wasting his time trying to
achieve something that won't payoff in the long run. You can't have
it both ways. History is on the side of the latter. If Paul_L has a problem,
it is being excessively emotional and seriously listening to his critics.

Don't forget that OU in a device is simply a gateway into more unknown
processes that are going to be have to be fully probed because only true
ZPE is equivalent to a fueled process. And I am not talking about claims
to ZPE. Patent as many devices as you like, where their energy comes
from the environment...but how do you know this ahead of time during
the development process?

:S:MarkSCoffman


Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 17, 2010, 04:49:44 PM
Anyhow, I've asked Stefan to delete my account, so I won't be around here to correct any further lies from the pirate. In my firm opinion the pirate would stoop so low as to fake a snapshot of my website. Anyone can find a google cache of my privacy statement if they want to see if the pirate is lying about me, as usual.

My bye bye thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8784 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8784)
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: PaulLowrance on February 17, 2010, 04:56:23 PM
My view are that patents are largely useless...Except for large
corporations that already know what they want to do, but if
Paul_L wants to give it try I think he should be allowed to have
a go at it. Paul is a very good researcher and seems to put out
information of everything about a project he as is learning,
educating others in the process, including me. I know his
experimental techniques are valid as we have seen in the
past. He thinks like an electrical engineer.

I have a problem with people with so much vested interest that
they can't even explain why they are saying, what they are saying
even when pressed. Or people that refuse to communicate at all
even though communication is being directed directly to them.

So Pirate you are saying is really not making sense. If patents work
then Paul_L has a dark side in trying to achieve them at others expense
but if patents don't work then he would be just wasting his time trying to
achieve something that won't payoff in the long run. You can't have
it both ways. History is on the side of the latter. If Paul_L has a problem,
it is being excessively emotional and seriously listening to his critics.

Don't forget that OU in a device is simply a gateway into more unknown
processes that are going to be have to be fully probed because only true
ZPE is equivalent to a fueled process. And I am not talking about claims
to ZPE. Patent as many devices as you like, where their energy comes
from the environment...but how do you know this ahead of time during
the development process?

:S:MarkSCoffman

Hi :S:MarkSCoffman,

Here's what I posted yesterday on exactly what I would do if I had a self-runner, which is pretty much what I've posted years ago -->

"Myself, I'll *NEVER* let thugs trick me! As stated for years, I'll get the documention ready to do a quick prior-art publishing at a 3rd party company, but will not click the send button just yet. Before doing so, I'll spend ~ 10 hours handing out fliers that contains all of the exact details & part numbers for people to build it to help get it open-sourced while demonstrating the device to people. Then I'll quickly submit to hundreds of forums, and send out to a large email list. Then I'll come back home and click the submit button to quickly submit my prior art to the 3rd party company (~ $100 to $150)."

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg228693#msg228693 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg228693#msg228693)

Of course if it's someone elses design, such as the Orbo, then I have zero interest in patenting it. That post is referring to if I get my old solid-state magnetic devices to self-run.
Title: Re: "Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency
Post by: 0c on February 17, 2010, 07:29:47 PM
Anyhow, I've asked Stefan to delete my A, so I won't be around here to correct any further lies from the pirate.

Paul, I for one will hate to see you go. You have shared some very interesting ideas and some relevant work. I don't always agree with what you say, but I appreciate your willingness to share.

I know we have had a number conflicts, but I have tried my best not to attack you. I support your efforts even when I disagree with you. I sincerely hope you will continue to share your thoughts.

0c