Author Topic: Self running coil? (Read 305579 times)

gotoluc · « **Reply #105 on:** March 18, 2010, 04:11:31 PM »

Quote from: mikestocks2006 on March 18, 2010, 04:05:23 PM

Hi gotoluc,
In searching for explanations, there could be another remote possibility, may I suggest the following very simple test?
Remove the probes of the two mutlimeters that continuously monitor the voltage and current of the capacitor(s).
And then, only measure the voltage/current momentarily at some time intervals eg every 10 or more minutes to see if the voltage still rises.

IIRC There was another thread, I think Ossieâ€™s motor, or orbo replications, where it appeared that a trickle current from the continuously hooked up voltmeter was back charging the source batteryâ€¦

Btw what are the batteries used in those two meters? Are they 9V a piece?

Great work and thought process on your setup
Thanks for posting.
Mike

Hi Mike,

I know this kind of thing can happen and that was tested before I started this topic.

So it was tested with no meters or probes attached and it did the same.

My meters on the cap bank use 9v batteries.

Thanks for pointing out this possible problem.

Luc

mrock · « **Reply #106 on:** March 18, 2010, 04:33:04 PM »

@mrock can you change it to 0.25mm instead of the 24mm

Thanks

Luc
[/quote]

Hi Luc,
Changes made, Re-posted Reply #92, is this correct.

thanks,
mike

gotoluc · « **Reply #107 on:** March 18, 2010, 04:44:19 PM »

Quote from: mrock on March 18, 2010, 04:33:04 PM

@mrock can you change it to 0.25mm instead of the 24mm

Thanks

Luc

Hi Luc,
Changes made, Re-posted Reply #92, is this correct.

thanks,
mike

Yes Mike, this is the correct change.

Thanks for your time.

Luc

mscoffman · « **Reply #108 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:02:43 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on March 18, 2010, 01:09:46 AM

Hi Mark and everyone,

at this time I'm not interested in a closed loop for a few reasons.

One is that an efficient pulse circuit could be made to use micro amps once
we know the parameters needed. So trying to use the SG3525 or better, a
CMOS version of the 555 still uses more current then a surface mount
efficient pulse circuit.

The other reason is I still don't quite understand how this circuit works.

More testing is needed.

Luc

While what the toroid and coil is doing is interesting and ultimately
theoretically complicated I think using to an overunity operating
circuit to probe the overunity energy field itself would prove more
productive.

:S:MarkSCoffman

mscoffman · « **Reply #109 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:14:17 PM »

Quote from: canam101 on March 18, 2010, 01:04:37 PM

I am a layman when it comes to this sort of thing, so please don't take my
remark the wrong way. But this is not very impressive, not when you have a
signal generator that is hooked to the mains as part of the circuit. That is
even worse than when you had a pulsing circuit run by a 9v battery.

If you cannot or will not take the output and run it into the input, so that you
have closed the loop, the only thing I can think of is that the 9v battery, or
the mains, is powering the device.

Not one free energy demonstrator ever tries to close the loop - there is
always a reason not to. If you really believe you have an anomaly, you
should try to close the loop.

Otherwise, all you are doing, it looks like, is broadcasting radio waves all over
the place and indirectly charging the capacitors from them, with the power
ultimately coming from the mains or the 9v battery, depending on whether
you are using the signal generator or the pulse circuit.

@canam101

You are a man after my own heart. You are absolutely correct about this
and it p*sses me off greatly. I think it's invalid and indirectly supports
the MIB's.

I do think this circuit is demonstrating overunity. I am withholding my opinion
on where this overunity energy comes from, for now...but we need devices
that clearly demonstrate it...so we can learn what to do with them.

Transistors, both Fets and Bipolars, both types need energy applied to
their gates and bases respectively to function. How much energy varies
with transistor types. Fets use AC energy through their internal (parasitic)
capacitance as listed on their manufactures specification sheets. Bipolar
transistors use energy both through their base currents(@voltage=power)
and AC through their internal parasitic capacitances (lower then Fets)

So at the very least, transistors will use energy for their internal operation
taken from the signal generator. At worst they can (and are configured
that way) to rectify and gate additional power into the circuit.

So while the circuit seems to be overunity we are left lacking proof.
The optoisolator circuit of previous Naudin links in this thread, causes
the transistor to get it's gate power, not from the signal generator,
but from the bulk capacitors, so using it and still having the voltage
climb on the capacitors would demonstrate that the circuit still has
overunity gain while also supplying all of it's own internal energy needs.

Once that is proven that can, only a few microwatts of signal
would be required additionally drawn to generate the required
clock. Probably by relocating the circuits hot frequency to
32.768KHz or /2 to 16.KHz or other submultiples thereof.

Since fet drive is tricky the whole thing could be able to be done
using the SG3525 circuit at a marginal cost of additional power.
We don't know whether the excess energy gain can support that
circuit.

Finally, it is possible to cut the required energy drawn by the
output transistor by reconfiguring the circuit to an emitter
coupled amplifier configuration. In this way both the collector
current plus the base current drives the coil (to ground) and
losses will be minimised. Alternately, connecting the Fet in
between the two coil windings and reusing the gate coupled
AC drive current might do the same thing.

I hoping that at least experimenter Magluvin will not succumb to
this overunitiphobia and will duplicate this circuit in a way that
we can progress. Once we get over this, we can design the output
according to standard engineering principles for optimal circuit
efficiency and maximize the overunity effect.

:S:MarkSCoffman

gotoluc · « **Reply #110 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:36:30 PM »

Quote from: mrock on March 18, 2010, 04:33:04 PM

@mrock can you change it to 0.25mm instead of the 24mm

Thanks

Luc

Hi Luc,
Changes made, Re-posted Reply #92, is this correct.

thanks,
mike

Hi Mike,

I decided to take the coil off the block of wood it was hot glued on to make sure of the wire direction and connection. I noticed the wires are a little different, so can you make the changes I made just in case any of this plays a important part. I also added where the wires start when winding.

The attached is the correct way. Sorry for the changes again.

Thanks

Luc

canam101 · « **Reply #111 on:** March 18, 2010, 05:53:57 PM »

Quote from: mscoffman on March 18, 2010, 05:14:17 PM

I do think this circuit is demonstrating overunity. I am withholding my opinion
on where this overunity energy comes from, for now...but we need devices
that clearly demonstrate it...so we can learn what to do with them.

Just looking at it from a layman's point of view, if I had such a circuit, and it looked like it was OU, the first thing I would do is to try to close the loop. If it stopped working when I tried it, it would at least get me working in a direction that would let me look at the reason for not being able to close the loop.

If it did close the loop, then after I got over my astonishment, I could try to find out what non-OU reason would allow me to close the loop. And it would be a hell of an incentive for everyone else to replicate what I had.

Either way, trying to close the loop would be very useful.

That may be a naive layman's view of it, but it is the reason I cannot understand why Luc doesn't even try to do this.

NextGen67 · « **Reply #112 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:13:23 PM »

Quote from: canam101 on March 18, 2010, 05:53:57 PM

Just looking at it from a layman's point of view, if I had such a circuit, and it looked like it was OU, the first thing I would do is to try to close the loop. If it stopped working when I tried it, it would at least get me working in a direction that would let me look at the reason for not being able to close the loop.

If it did close the loop, then after I got over my astonishment, I could try to find out what non-OU reason would allow me to close the loop. And it would be a hell of an incentive for everyone else to replicate what I had.

Either way, trying to close the loop would be very useful.

That may be a naive layman's view of it, but it is the reason I cannot understand why Luc doesn't even try to do this.

@canam101

Well, I think because each individual has his own way of working... I thought he explained already what was his personal reason?

My personal opinion is well, give him the time he need, after all *he* is the one doing the work, and kind enough to report and give questions and remarks.

Of course I am as curious as you

So you might want to give it a try to replicate and close the loop.

Tough, at this stage I think it is better indeed to analyze what is going on, and see to find why is is behaving as it does now. In time I will replicate his circuit also, whether is proves out to be AE or not [AE=Additional Energy].

Ok, lets get back to help Luc with his work where possible... He put in his nightly hours for it

--
NextGen67

gyulasun · « **Reply #113 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:20:21 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on March 18, 2010, 05:36:30 PM

....
The attached is the correct way. Sorry for the changes again.

Thanks

Luc

Hi Luc,

Thanks for the corrections. I found: the way you eventually wind the coils is known as the common mode choke coils EXCEPT you connect them in series. (By the way, here is some common mode choke coils, widely used at the mains voltage input of most power supplies etc:
http://www.tdk.co.jp/tefe02/e93_tf.pdf ).

The fact your no magnet coil inductance is around 1 Henry and with the magnets it goes down to as low as 23mH to 200mH shows saturation and would be interesting to know that the switching current from the FET makes the core towards more saturation or brings it to a less saturated point on the core's B-H curve? Whenever you have time for a quick check: simply replace the two crocodile clips on the coil contacts with each other, to change the current flow's direction in the coil and see how the circuit behaves.
Also, in another test, could you shift the position of the magnets from the vertical symmetry line in the schematic to the left or to the right and see if this has any effect?

Sorry if my explanation was not understandable, now the coil wireing issue may bring us further ahead.

Thanks, Gyula

gotoluc · « **Reply #114 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:23:54 PM »

Quote from: canam101 on March 18, 2010, 05:53:57 PM

Just looking at it from a layman's point of view, if I had such a circuit, and it looked like it was OU, the first thing I would do is to try to close the loop. If it stopped working when I tried it, it would at least get me working in a direction that would let me look at the reason for not being able to close the loop.

If it did close the loop, then after I got over my astonishment, I could try to find out what non-OU reason would allow me to close the loop. And it would be a hell of an incentive for everyone else to replicate what I had.

Either way, trying to close the loop would be very useful.

That may be a naive layman's view of it, but it is the reason I cannot understand why Luc doesn't even try to do this.

Hi canam101,

I personally would be surprised that the circuit (posted above) on its own would be OU

However, if we are able to make a Toroid with a magnet Resonate at next to no cost of energy since even the possible gate switching energy is being returned to the capacitor bank, then this is good.

What you and others who are not replicating may not be considering is that a pickup coil can added and real current can be extracted at no cost to the capacitor bank returned input energy.

This is where the possible OU or Free energy could be coming from. My tests so far show that when I add a load to the pickup coil it has no reverse effect on the input. JLN has demonstrated this also but he does not have his input at zero yet!

Also, there could be a possibility of multiple pickup coils added as the toroid seems to have an opposite field on each half and maybe on each side. So there could be 4 pickup coils. The other thing is the pickup coil I used is not tuned so it is not taking full advantage of the potential magnetic current.

Luc

canam101 · « **Reply #115 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:27:47 PM »

@gotoluc
Thanks for the reply.

gotoluc · « **Reply #116 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:46:43 PM »

Quote from: gyulasun on March 18, 2010, 06:20:21 PM

Hi Luc,

Thanks for the corrections. I found: the way you eventually wind the coils is known as the common mode choke coils EXCEPT you connect them in series. (By the way, here is some common mode choke coils, widely used at the mains voltage input of most power supplies etc:
http://www.tdk.co.jp/tefe02/e93_tf.pdf ).

The fact your no magnet coil inductance is around 1 Henry and with the magnets it goes down to as low as 23mH to 200mH shows saturation and would be interesting to know that the switching current from the FET makes the core towards more saturation or brings it to a less saturated point on the core's B-H curve? Whenever you have time for a quick check: simply replace the two crocodile clips on the coil contacts with each other, to change the current flow's direction in the coil and see how the circuit behaves.
Also, in another test, could you shift the position of the magnets from the vertical symmetry line in the schematic to the left or to the right and see if this has any effect?

Sorry if my explanation was not understandable, now the coil wireing issue may bring us further ahead.

Thanks, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

thanks for your explanations so far. I don't always understand them completely but they do help but they could be important to others who are looking at this topic. So please don't stop as I'm sure it is appreciated.

Switching the polarities is something that I have done a while back and the coil does behave differently. The effect is best with the coil as the UPDATED coil I posted above.

I have also moved the magnet around. This effects it much less but that could be because there is only one pickup coil. What I forgot to demonstrate in my videos is with the magnet on the center of the coils if I move the pickup coil from the below half to the above half the sine wave on the scope flips around. My last test last night I added a pickup coil on the top half and was able to also collect energy without affecting the lower coil or the input returned energy.

There could be a possibility of pickup coils on the other side of the toroid also.

Luc

ADDED:

Could you help with the tuning of the pickup coils. As I noticed a difference, as one that was working well will no longer when I change the frequency and another coil will start to work better. I don't know enough to make an idea coil for a certain frequency.

NextGen67 · « **Reply #117 on:** March 18, 2010, 06:57:37 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on March 18, 2010, 06:23:54 PM

Hi canam101,

I personally would be surprised that the circuit (posted above) on its own would be OU

However, if we are able to make a Toroid with a magnet Resonate at next to no cost of energy since even the possible gate switching energy is being returned to the capacitor bank, then this is good.

What you and others who are not replicating may not be considering is that a pickup coil can added and real current can be extracted at no cost to the capacitor bank returned input energy.

This is where the possible OU or Free energy could be coming from. My tests so far show that when I add a load to the pickup coil it has no reverse effect on the input. JLN has demonstrated this also but he does not have his input at zero yet!

Also, there could be a possibility of multiple pickup coils added as the toroid seems to have an opposite field on each half and maybe on each side. So there could be 4 pickup coils. The other thing is the pickup coil I used is not tuned so it is not taking full advantage of the potential magnetic current.

Luc

Hi Luc,

Exactly what I noticed also. And the even better thing is, that *might* such happen, It does in no single way 'break' any law or interference with CoE.

It is just the Bloch Wall domains receiving an 'extra' kick from the magnet that is sitting there. At the end of the pulse, these domains will be 'shaken' for a while -at a rather high frequency- and the energy released from the *motion* of these domains *do* exit the coil.

Your pickup coil is collecting these, and as you mentioned before, most if not all the supplied energy put in the coil comes back in the Cap.

What is basically happening is that instead the magnet is moving, the domains inside the core do 'move', and by such cause [in combination with the magnet] an extra -short moment- of Additional Energy.

--
NextGen67

gmeast · « **Reply #118 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Magluvin on March 18, 2010, 12:02:42 AM

One thing I find interesting, not that we know it matters yet, is the coils working together yet wound in the opposite direction. Could this be an ingredient that has not been looked into?

Not to go off topic, but to expand on it....

If you had the 2 coils on the core so that when you send power to the coils, that they oppose one another instead of both causing circular flux in the core. This may provide the same tension as the permanent mag provides the core in Lucs experiments. Just the thought of it in conventional circuitry would be a fault situation. But take it to resonance. It would be different if the coils were 1 in 1 wrapped over one another out of phase, but 2 separate coils opposing would be working that magnetic spring.
Itseung claim on embedded magnetic core IS what we are seeing here. Just he magnet is on the outside of the core instead of being internal to the core circuit.
He says it works, Jln says it works, I say luc has got it going on. =]
---------------------------------------------------

Hi all,

I second the motion! (above)

When Luc first described the coil winding, I thought that this is a unique coil configuration.

Such a coil configuration would never enter the minds of a conventional engineers ... it is contrary, a fault. Placing a PM in the orientation as Luc's is alien to me considering the Orbo inductance demo has the magnet and core axis' coaxially arranged (I know ... probably not the same effect).

Another Xbehavior is that the best power pickup is at the 'head-on' position where the windings meet.

Has the same setup (magnet and all) been tried using conventional toroid winding?

Later,

Greg

gyulasun · « **Reply #119 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:53:24 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on March 18, 2010, 06:46:43 PM

....
I have also moved the magnet around. This effects it much less but that could be because there is only one pickup coil. What I forgot to demonstrate in my videos is with the magnet on the center of the coils if I move the pickup coil from the below half to the above half the sine wave on the scope flips around. My last test last night I added a pickup coil on the top half and was able to also collect energy without affecting the lower coil or the input returned energy.

There could be a possibility of pickup coils on the other side of the toroid also.

ADDED:

Could you help with the tuning of the pickup coils. As I noticed a difference, as one that was working well will no longer when I change the frequency and another coil will start to work better. I don't know enough to make an idea coil for a certain frequency.

Hi Luc,

Ok on you findings. I think first thing would be to explore the volume of the magnetic field coming out from the toroid, I mean to probe around the toroid with a max 1-1.5cm OD short solenoid coil (no more than 50-60 turns) and use your Fluke multidigit meter in AC to see the induced voltage and find where and how the position of the probe coil gives the highest amplitude and how it changes with going away from the toroid.

I say this first because I think the pickup coil you showed in your videos is a bit long for the job. (I think you chose that just to see the behavior.)

Also the copper wire resistance ought to be the smaller the better because of using 15-20 Ohm coils will waste induced power when loaded. Unfortunately, this requirement involves using thicker wire for the pickup coils, and this makes them a bit bulkier.

I wonder if these pickup coils could be used with ferromagnetic cores? It would be worth trying because it would tremendously increase the pickup coils inductance, hence the induced output power.

Once you explored the best places for positioning the pickups, then try to make or obtain multiturn coils that OD / length ratio is between 2 - 3 or so.
I know you are aware of Brooks coils, of course this is not an ultimate requirement now. Much more important is to test a pickup with soft iron core included to see if the lack of action-reaction still holds to the toroid.

Finally when you have some pickup coils around the toroid, and you connect them either in series or parallel (to increase output current or voltage (but not both of course)) you may wish to measure the combined inductance with your L meter and then find a capacitor that makes them resonant at the output frequency. This capacitor ought to be connected in series with one of the common coil outputs and then would come the load.

(You may consider using audio crossover air cored coils for the pickups if you do not have to time or means now for making some multiturn coils. Unfortunately, they are not the cheapest components.)

rgds, Gyula

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Self running coil? (Read 305579 times)

gotoluc

Re: Self running coil?

mrock

Re: Self running coil?

gotoluc

Re: Self running coil?

mscoffman

Re: Self running coil?

mscoffman

Re: Self running coil?

gotoluc

Re: Self running coil?

canam101

Re: Self running coil?

NextGen67

Re: Self running coil?

gyulasun

Re: Self running coil?

gotoluc

Re: Self running coil?

canam101

Re: Self running coil?

gotoluc

Re: Self running coil?

NextGen67

Re: Self running coil?

gmeast

Re: Self running coil?

gyulasun

Re: Self running coil?