PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 15:27:29
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19
Author Topic: TinMans reserch and experiments into free energy devices.  (Read 196368 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rotor, armature, close enough as far as motors go in my books. I think we all know what is being referred to (I hope) in either case. ;)

The point though, was that induction to the air coil only happens when it is placed exactly under the single motor magnet and nowhere else. Which was surprising.

OK, so you seemed surprised by this "effect". Why so?


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
My own experiments have used ferrite or iron or even coathanger pieces when induction has needed to be strong. Air core coils can do some work, especially when lack of rotor interaction is needed...but to have such a bigger difference showing when under the magnet was the surprise.
Plus, because the magnet is there anyway, the pull interactions on the armature are from the magnet. The RPM's seemed very much similar with or without the coil. Non scientific of course, but with ferrite the difference is quite striking, here, not very much difference if any.
Or, in other words, if induction is required, throw the coils in front of the magnets every time !


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
It is sensible to me that there will be more induced voltage when the coil is in front of the magnet as opposed to being on either side...regardless if the coil is air-core or not.

I guess I find it surprising that you find that surprising.  ;D


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
Well I guess if the magnet has ferrite in it, ya know lol
Or iron, perhaps. But actual ferrite was not as good. Just try it out :)
It's cool how the rotor doesn't seem to be affected.
Result = the magnet is doing the work  :D
Personally, quite honestly, I didn't know they are not supposed to be able to do any work. The things are packed with displacement energy ! A fridge magnet sticks to a fridge and holds a piece of paper in place for years. Likewise, an opposite polarity pair of microwave magnets will form a fantastic bearing for a wind turbine, just by sitting there.

Btw, the cube now runs a blue LED nice and brightly at 3.8mA. Simply connected it on 1 of the windings as a JT, with a 0.068uF cap and 1meg resistor in parallel to the Base of the transistor.


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770

Personally, quite honestly, I didn't know they are not supposed to be able to do any work.
Me neither I was stunned when MH et al told me a magnet is just a hammer. Esp when I see those real lines of flux in Ken Wheelers whatchamacallit.
   
Group: Guest
Me neither I was stunned when MH et al told me a magnet is just a hammer. Esp when I see those real lines of flux in Ken Wheelers whatchamacallit.

There is a video someplace where ED is explaining "flux lines", saying they are not contiguous, each one aligns itself to a particular place.  His example:  If you take two permanent magnets, set one North and one South separated by some distance, then wind a small coil and connect it to a set of headphones, you can move the small coil around between the two magnets and hear the cracking and popping as you break those lines of flux.  Then he goes on to infer that by breaking those lines of flux you in effect create electrons--as he says they are the result of destroying the dipole, i.e. destroying energy in its natural form.

Certainly a different way of looking at things, maybe helpful; maybe not.  It is an easy experiment to try and come to your own conclusion with though.
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
That is an interesting take on it Matt....
Hmm, here's a thought, which i've also just realised is likely more pants than a closing out sale at a tailors shop.
Oh well, i've started typing now.
 
What if ED is correct and the effect is that of 'creating electrons'. It could be viewed mentally as analogous to bond splitting of water molecules for HHO. That magnets have what would amount to water flowing between the poles, the action of passing a wire through is like passing a bucket through the water. If the bucket is stationary, nothing happens, the water flows around it.

:)


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   
Group: Guest
What if ED is correct and the effect is that of 'creating electrons'. It could be viewed mentally as analogous to bond splitting of water molecules for HHO. That magnets have what would amount to water flowing between the poles, the action of passing a wire through is like passing a bucket through the water. If the bucket is stationary, nothing happens, the water flows around it.

Does it make a difference whether the bucket is already full or not?  Moving or stationary?

I would contend it does, very similar as to what you would witness with the literal experiment of flowing water and buckets.

My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium.  When you go probing around in a place where energy has situated itself, it is going to re-align.  It has to, that is what it does.  In the process of re-aligning, it does so in time.  And shazzam, now we can introduce the concept of power--a movement of energy in time.  Where I'm convinced we have made some oversights, is in lumping each individual strand of energy.  In some respects you can do this because each strand responds to the strand around it, but at the same time, it is its own entity and must be considered as such.  This is where I suspect nano-technology takes things to a whole new level, because now you can begin to operate at the level of each individual strand, which I estimate probably works at an atomic level or smaller.

See, when we wind a coil of un-aided visible size, we have no idea how many individual elements of energy we are disrupting.  We group everything together and measure it on the oscilloscope inferring the waveform tells the whole story.  I highly doubt the scope even scratches the surface of what it really going on.  To be quite honest, I think even with the best instrumentation we are still nearly blind.  What we really need to understand is all the moving parts, then we can use instrumentation as a simple confirmation everything really is as we predict.

We also need to be aware of the math.  A lot of the formulas we use lump things together to reduce complexity--not good when you're looking for a needle in the haystack.
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
Ah, but put a big auto salvage yard electromagnet above the haystack and....plink, the needle is found instantly :P

Mind you, that does relate to what you say. Knowing the right methods, the best way to convert or extract energy, or needles..


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770


My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium. 
I thought that was how an electric motor worked? Don Smith used to say a similar thing.
   
Group: Guest
Is current flowing in your classical generator operating under no load condition?  The generator is open circuit, DVM indicates a voltage, is there current operating in the coil in this situation? 

When the answer to this question is found, and the underlying mechanism comprehended, one has what one requires to begin considering how to build a generator which has as much drag as an unloaded generator when loaded.


Regards
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Is current flowing in your classical generator operating under no load condition?  The generator is open circuit, DVM indicates a voltage, is there current operating in the coil in this situation? 

When the answer to this question is found, and the underlying mechanism comprehended, one has what one requires to begin considering how to build a generator which has as much drag as an unloaded generator when loaded.


Regards

Currents always flow through the body of the generator-regardless of weather the generator has a load attached to what we know as! The outputs!.The trouble starts when the current produced when a load is attached creates a secondary current throughout the body of the generator that is in opposition to that of what is the free flowing current of the unloaded state.
Maybe just chuck a PM in the body of the generator to enhance the free flowing current. The downside is that at idle or a no load attached situation, we draw more power from the prime mover-always a down side, but not really a problem if the output is always loaded.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
There is a video someplace where ED is explaining "flux lines", saying they are not contiguous, each one aligns itself to a particular place.  His example:  If you take two permanent magnets, set one North and one South separated by some distance, then wind a small coil and connect it to a set of headphones, you can move the small coil around between the two magnets and hear the cracking and popping as you break those lines of flux.  Then he goes on to infer that by breaking those lines of flux you in effect create electrons--as he says they are the result of destroying the dipole, i.e. destroying energy in its natural form.

Certainly a different way of looking at things, maybe helpful; maybe not.  It is an easy experiment to try and come to your own conclusion with though.
The cracking and popping is known as Barkhausen noise. There is a wikipedia entry for it. The second graphic is an animated GIF that shows one interpretation although the author is talking about moving the domain wall rather than field lines. On the other hand, if you move the domain wall you move the field lines also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect
More info and videos: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=barkhausen%20effect

I think that graphic is incomplete however. It shows the field line moving over an impurity in the material. When the field line passes over the impurity it stretches for 2 frames but then he shows the field line all the way to the right. But to get there the field line must actually break and then reconnect. I'm thinking that reconnection is what causes the Barkhausen noise.

When you research "magnetic reconnection" most of what you find is astrophysics and plasma research. If, however, we think of aether as the basic "plasma" of the universe I don't see any reason the magnetic reconnection wouldn't occur inside materials. I'm not sure about magnetic reconnection creating electrons but the research says it will definitely accelerate them.

The attachment is an animated GIF showing the magnetic reconnection and it operating in both directions as a magnetic field is oscillated both ways over the impurity.
   
Group: Guest
Currents always flow through the body of the generator-regardless of weather the generator has a load attached to what we know as! The outputs!.The trouble starts when the current produced when a load is attached creates a secondary current throughout the body of the generator that is in opposition to that of what is the free flowing current of the unloaded state.
Maybe just chuck a PM in the body of the generator to enhance the free flowing current. The downside is that at idle or a no load attached situation, we draw more power from the prime mover-always a down side, but not really a problem if the output is always loaded.

It seems we are on the same page.  To be in complete agreement however will take some time.  I find that we must consider how the so-called "secondary current" co-manifests with the primary in the open circuit state.  Induced current is born out of opposition to change in voltage.  It is firmly established that when one eliminates the capacitve coupling within an inductive circuit, no voltage can manifest, no induced voltage no induced current.  It would appear that the magic dipole that the would be gurus preach about is very real, and machines we build are built around the idea that the primary must be destroyed.   

With this in mind I ask myself what is the fundamental difference between a shorted and unshorted inductance?  The answer that keeps bubbling up to the surface is Asymmetry versus Symmetry.  As I mentioned before, present day concepts are built around the idea of destroying the primary, when we look at these systems we find them to be very symmetrical.  Any tendency to perform asymmetrically is engineered out.  I am finding that what is need, is oscillations between asymmetry and symmetry, when experimenting along these lines it became clear that the concept of oscillating between the two is directly related to the oscillations between the inherent energy storage mechanism of inductance and capacitance on all levels.

Regards
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 281
It seems we are on the same page.  To be in complete agreement however will take some time.  I find that we must consider how the so-called "secondary current" co-manifests with the primary in the open circuit state.  Induced current is born out of opposition to change in voltage.  It is firmly established that when one eliminates the capacitve coupling within an inductive circuit, no voltage can manifest, no induced voltage no induced current.  It would appear that the magic dipole that the would be gurus preach about is very real, and machines we build are built around the idea that the primary must be destroyed.    

With this in mind I ask myself what is the fundamental difference between a shorted and unshorted inductance?  The answer that keeps bubbling up to the surface is Asymmetry versus Symmetry.  As I mentioned before, present day concepts are built around the idea of destroying the primary, when we look at these systems we find them to be very symmetrical.  Any tendency to perform asymmetrically is engineered out.  I am finding that what is need, is oscillations between asymmetry and symmetry, when experimenting along these lines it became clear that the concept of oscillating between the two is directly related to the oscillations between the inherent energy storage mechanism of inductance and capacitance on all levels.

Regards

Good day Erfinder

Yes, indeed!

take a look at the attached pdf from '95............... old but forgotten news?
This is a form of parametric resonance switching the inductance *on & off* so to speak within a mechanical system.
It can also be done within a totally electrical/SS system as well.

take care, peace
lost_bro
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Does it make a difference whether the bucket is already full or not?  Moving or stationary?

I would contend it does, very similar as to what you would witness with the literal experiment of flowing water and buckets.
Modelling backed by experimental verification is the best known method for significant progress being made.

My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium.  When you go probing around in a place where energy has situated itself, it is going to re-align.  It has to, that is what it does.  In the process of re-aligning, it does so in time.  And shazzam, now we can introduce the concept of power--a movement of energy in time.  Where I'm convinced we have made some oversights, is in lumping each individual strand of energy.  In some respects you can do this because each strand responds to the strand around it, but at the same time, it is its own entity and must be considered as such.  This is where I suspect nano-technology takes things to a whole new level, because now you can begin to operate at the level of each individual strand, which I estimate probably works at an atomic level or smaller.
"My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium". Correct, power is the manifestation of energy attempting to achieve zero potential difference through time, the rate of power. A bucket of water has weight when weighed externally on a scale, it has hydrostatic pressure differential when the liquid pressure is measured internally from top to bottom. The external weight can increase internal hydrostatic pressure on another bucket and then the properties between external and internal energy can be substituted.. in situ.. without moving the mass, once the mass that was at the top has descended to the bottom, doing work and has zero gravitational potential energy remaining (apart from the internal hydrostatic pressure differential of the lower bucket, which is small and will equalise in a U pipe anyway).

See, when we wind a coil of un-aided visible size, we have no idea how many individual elements of energy we are disrupting.  We group everything together and measure it on the oscilloscope inferring the waveform tells the whole story.  I highly doubt the scope even scratches the surface of what it really going on.  To be quite honest, I think even with the best instrumentation we are still nearly blind.  What we really need to understand is all the moving parts, then we can use instrumentation as a simple confirmation everything really is as we predict.
Map the properties at each stage and build a model, confirm the predictions with experiment.

We also need to be aware of the math.  A lot of the formulas we use lump things together to reduce complexity--not good when you're looking for a needle in the haystack.
I found my needle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Definitions

Several definitions exist for weight, not all of which are equivalent.[3][7][8][9]
Gravitational definition

The most common definition of weight found in introductory physics textbooks defines weight as the force exerted on a body by gravity.[1][9] This is often expressed in the formula W = mg, where W is the weight, m the mass of the object, and g gravitational acceleration.

In 1901, the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) established this as their official definition of weight:

    "The word weight denotes a quantity of the same nature[Note 1] as a force: the weight of a body is the product of its mass and the acceleration due to gravity."

    — Resolution 2 of the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures[11][12]

This resolution defines weight as a vector, since force is a vector quantity. However, some textbooks also take weight to be a scalar by defining:

    "The weight W of a body is equal to the magnitude Fg of the gravitational force on the body."[13]

The gravitational acceleration varies from place to place. Sometimes, it is simply taken to a have a standard value of 9.80665 m/s2, which gives the standard weight.[11]

The force whose magnitude is equal to mg newtons is also known as the m kilogram weight (which term is abbreviated to kg-wt)[14]

Operational definition

In the operational definition, the weight of an object is the force measured by the operation of weighing it, which is the force it exerts on its support.[7] This can make a considerable difference, depending on the details; for example, an object in free fall exerts little if any force on its support, a situation that is commonly referred to as weightlessness. However, being in free fall does not affect the weight according to the gravitational definition. Therefore, the operational definition is sometimes refined by requiring that the object be at rest.[citation needed] However, this raises the issue of defining "at rest" (usually being at rest with respect to the Earth is implied by using standard gravity[citation needed]). In the operational definition, the weight of an object at rest on the surface of the Earth is lessened by the effect of the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation.

The operational definition, as usually given, does not explicitly exclude the effects of buoyancy, which reduces the measured weight of an object when it is immersed in a fluid such as air or water. As a result, a floating balloon or an object floating in water might be said to have zero weight.

ISO definition

In the ISO International standard ISO 80000-4(2006),[15] describing the basic physical quantities and units in mechanics as a part of the International standard ISO/IEC 80000, the definition of weight is given as:

    Definition

        F_g = mg
        where m is mass and g is local acceleration of free fall.

    Remarks

        It should be noted that, when the reference frame is Earth, this quantity comprises not only the local gravitational force, but also the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth, a force which varies with latitude.
        The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is excluded in the weight.
        In common parlance, the name "weight" continues to be used where "mass" is meant, but this practice is deprecated.

    — ISO 80000-4 (2006)

The definition is dependent on the chosen frame of reference. When the chosen frame is co-moving with the object in question then this definition precisely agrees with the operational definition.[8] If the specified frame is the surface of the Earth, the weight according to the ISO and gravitational definitions differ only by the centrifugal effects due to the rotation of the Earth.



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
What is the Unified Field Theory?

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/f/fund_forces.htm

Gravity

Of these forces, gravity has the furthest reach but it's the weakest in actual magnitude.

It is a purely attractive force which reaches through even the "empty" void of space to draw two masses toward each other. It keeps the planets in orbit around the sun and the moon in orbit around the Earth.

Gravitation is described under the theory of general relativity, which defines it as the curvature of spacetime around an object of mass. This curvature, in turn, creates a situation where the path of least energy is toward the other object of mass.

Electromagnetism

Electromagnetism is the interaction of particles with an electrical charge. Charged particles at rest interact through electrostatic forces, while in motion they interact through both electrical and magnetic forces.

For a long time, the electric and magnetic forces were considered to be different forces, but they were finally unified by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864, under Maxwell's equations. In the 1940s, quantum electrodynamics consolidated electromagnetism with quantum physics.

Electromagnetism is perhaps the most obviously prevalent force in our world, as it can affect things at a reasonable distance and with a fair amount of force.

Weak Interaction

The weak interaction is a very powerful force that acts on the scale of the atomic nucleus. It causes phenomena such as beta decay. It has been consolidated with electromagnetism as a single interaction called the "electroweak interaction." The weak interaction is mediated by the W boson (there are actually two types, the W+ and W- bosons) and also the Z boson.

Strong Interaction

The strongest of the forces is the aptly-named strong interaction, which is the force that, among other things, keeps nucleons (protons & neutrons) bound together. In the helium atom, for example, it is strong enough to bind two protons together despite the fact that their positive electrical charges cause them to repulse each other.

In essence, the strong interaction allows particles called gluons to bind together quarks to create the nucleons in the first place. Gluons can also interact with other gluons, which gives the strong interaction a theoretically infinite distance, although it's major manifestations are all at the subatomic level.

Unifying the Fundamental Forces

Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered. Just as electricity, magnetism, and the weak force were unified into the electroweak interaction, they work to unify all of the fundamental forces.

The current quantum mechanical interpretation of these forces is that the particles do not interact directly, but rather manifest virtual particles that mediate the actual interactions. All of the forces except for gravity have been consolidated into this "Standard Model" of interaction.

The effort to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces is called quantum gravity. It postulates the existence of a virtual particle called the graviton, which would be the mediating element in gravity interactions. To date, gravitons have not been detected and no theories of quantum gravity have been successful or universally adopted.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Fundamental interaction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces or interactive forces, are the interactions in physical systems that don't appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field. The gravitational force is modeled as a continuous classical field. The other three are modeled as a discrete quantum field, and exhibit a measurable unit or elementary particle.

Gravitation and electromagnetism act over a potentially infinite distance across the universe. They mediate macroscopic phenomena every day. The other two fields act over minuscule, subatomic distances. The strong interaction is responsible for the binding of atomic nuclei. The weak interaction also acts on the nucleus, mediating radioactive decay.

Theoretical physicists working beyond the Standard Model seek to quantize the gravitational field toward predictions that particle physicists can experimentally confirm, thus yielding acceptance to a theory of quantum gravity (QG). (Phenomena suitable to model as a fifth force—perhaps an added gravitational effect—remain widely disputed). Other theorists seek to unite the electroweak and strong fields within a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). While all four fundamental interactions are widely thought to align at an extremely minuscule scale, particle accelerators cannot produce the massive energy levels required to experimentally probe at that Planck scale (which would experimentally confirm such theories). Yet some theories, such as the string theory, seek both QG and GUT within one framework, unifying all four fundamental interactions along with mass production within a theory of everything (ToE).


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field.

Specific Heat Field ?.. would that put us up to six conventionally accepted fundamental interactions ?.. anyone.. ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
Specific Heat Field ?.. would that put us up to six conventionally accepted fundamental interactions ?.. anyone.. ?
No force - no interaction.  All of the fields enumerated above are understood by the mainstream physicists as force fields, or in other words, fields of forces (Grav, electric, magnetic, weak, strong, etc...)
IMO www.rs2theory.org unifies them the best.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
I'm traveling next week but when I get back I will be starting a new build of the Tinnie (thought that was a good name). I was thinking of using the Alexander patent for the gen coil though as it would be easier for me to implement. I was thinking this would work ok even though it does not switch the output coil like the Tinnie does. Any thoughts?
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
Yeah Jim...after a few tinnies, don't start up the grinder !
Oh and I don't think they'll let you to hook wires up to things while on the plane lol

Happy travels :)


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
Yeah Jim...after a few tinnies, don't start up the grinder !
Oh and I don't think they'll let you to hook wires up to things while on the plane lol

Happy travels :)
Lol thanks Mark. Have you tried shorting the output coils?
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1399
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
On a plane ?  :D

Otherwise, yes, some shorting and variations on it all. But have had no real luck as yet.
It seems they/it need to be shorted at exactly the right moment of rotor travel. Very fine adjustments until something click-pops into place and it does something extraordinary.
What I need to do, is to get 4 working meters together. Have repaired 1, where the amperage output had blown and need to fix at least 1 more ( a piece of aluminium foil as a fuse doesn't do meters any good *cough* ). Then I could see the input vs output measurements. Same for any project in fact, so does need to be done.
 


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1770
On a dead short on the output it increases to 400ma out whilst input is down around 550ma . On the Tinnie Brad is switching the output with the secondary commutator but that does not look like it happening for the Alexander patent.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 15:27:29