Romerouk's Muller Replication

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Motors > Muller Generator > Romerouk's Muller Replication

2024-11-26, 21:37:58
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 37

« previous next »

Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication (Read 510652 times)

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #25 on: 2011-05-07, 15:00:16 »
Group: Guest	The motor/generator doesn't amaze me but the arguments against it, so soon, do. As far as analog vs. digital metering goes.... We should apply the same arguments for any experiment not using digital meters. This includes the ones done before we had digital meters. Somebody call Faraday, Tesla, etc. Most of you are right. We should be looking for holes in the presentation not crunching numbers we don't have. If the presentation is clean then the only math result will be is an error like !DIV0

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #26 on: 2011-05-07, 15:17:43 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Assuming a relatively high pulse frequency compared to the "attack" and "decay" times of the meters, the analog meters will provide a very good average, even with missing pulses. Think of the sluggish meter movement as a loaded filtering capacitor, and this will be very close. Now, if the rectified output was heavily filtered, and I believe he is doing that now with a 47,000u or 470,000u capacitor, and we use a CSR or current meter after this filter cap, we can get a pretty good idea of the output power, provided the filter cap is not loaded too heavily. The load can be "matched" to the output by monitoring the output voltage with a DMM while the load resistance is steadily lowered until the measured output voltage starts to drop. Take a DC voltage or current reading at this point and using the final measured resistance of the load, the output power can be calculated with some degree of accuracy, at least close enough to know if it is higher or lower than the input power. This method should work well with any electrical device where the output can be rectified, and the input is a DC source. I don't think taking the RMS of a pulsed DC output then using V²/R is going to work because the voltage and current information is not present, and we know those will most likely not be in-phase. But I could be wrong. At any rate, I agree with Peter at this point. He seems to have looped the device, and that tends to make the output power measurement a moot point at this time. .99 --------------------------- "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

ctglabs	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #27 on: 2011-05-07, 15:33:15 »
Group: Guest	Hi all, Living only a few miles from RomeroUK, I offered to visit and take some more expensive equipment, but he doesn't seem interested, at least not at this time. Also perhaps something to consider is the mass of the rotor seems to be somewhere between 2kg and 5kg and if only a very small load is being drawn once the battery is disconnected and with good bearings this kinetic energy could perhaps sustain it for the length of the video. It would be nice to know the RPM. 3.5 hours as he claims would rule that option out but we only have a short video... Regards to all, Dave.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #28 on: 2011-05-07, 15:52:46 »
Group: Guest	Poynt: There is an interesting simple experiment that would be nice for somebody to do. Take a signal generator and set it up to output a positive going pulse, say 0 volts low and 10 volts high. Make the duty cycle of the output waveform 90% high and 10% low. Then connect that to an analog voltage meter and slowly sweep the frequency higher and higher. At very low frequencies the needle will deflect back and forth and you will be able to see the attack and decay times. As you sweep the frequency higher the needle will have a jiggle that progressively reduces in amplitude. I am speculating that there will be a band where the analog meter is showing too high a voltage before it settles down and shows the proper average voltage. On the other hand what you state about the low-pass filtering makes perfect sense also. I am just not sure that there isn't a frequency range were the differences in the attack time and the decay time come into play. I don't think it's a linear filter. You mentioned that he has the big filtering capacitor. That's going to do some smoothing but still be energy neutral. In that sense you can ignore it when looking at the energy trail. I don't see it affecting the power measurement on the light bulb load. Quote I don't think taking the RMS of a pulsed DC output then using V2/R is going to work either because the voltage and current information is not present, and we know those will most likely not be in-phase. But I could be wrong. Another interesting investigation. Like you said, a scope and some current sensing resistors would be fun. I can't see why the voltage and current wouldn't be in phase. The filament is always seeing a coil discharging through it except for the drop-outs. Ignoring the drop-outs and the dead bands for a second you have what looks like a DC voltage with a small AC ripple superimposed on top. The ripple is not a sine wave, it's a series of positive humps. This observation from Gotoluc is interesting: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752 The battery voltage drops when the light bulb load is applied as shown on the digital multimeter. That's implying that when the battery is outputting a pulse of current to transfer power into the load, it's a higher-current pulse. So how come the digital current meter is not showing a higher current consumption? My assumption would be that when the light bulb load is applied that the battery voltage drops because its outputting more energy per output pulse of current for a higher average power output. In other words there is higher current flowing in the pulse itself. So I am mystified and that is worth investigating further with a scope and CSR. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-05-07, 16:41:28 by MileHigh »

Chef	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #29 on: 2011-05-07, 15:55:45 »
Jr. Member Posts: 69	Quote from: ctglabs on 2011-05-07, 15:33:15 Hi all, Living only a few miles from RomeroUK, I offered to visit and take some more expensive equipment, but he doesn't seem interested, at least not at this time. Also perhaps something to consider is the mass of the rotor seems to be somewhere between 2kg and 5kg and if only a very small load is being drawn once the battery is disconnected and with good bearings this kinetic energy could perhaps sustain it for the length of the video. It would be nice to know the RPM. 3.5 hours as he claims would rule that option out but we only have a short video... Regards to all, Dave. Very good points about the spinning rotor. There is a transient phenomena happening from the start till the rotor hitting it's maximum constant speed. Higher the speed or the mass, higher energies could be stored in the rotor. I think he mention somewhere necessary to use high weight rotor. --------------------------- "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #30 on: 2011-05-07, 16:04:00 »
Group: Guest	Personally I am not too concerned about the mass of the rotor. The mass of the rotor and its associated rotational inertia is of course energy neutral. It can store energy but only for a minute or so. Plus you would observe the rotor slowing down as it spins. There is a time constant for the spinning rotor discharging it's energy into the light bulb load. Let's suppose it's something between say 20 seconds and one minute. In five time constants the rotor will nearly come to a stop. So you can rule out the mass of the rotor as being able to mask a free energy effect. MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #31 on: 2011-05-07, 16:12:06 »
Group: Guest	EMdevices: I am sure people will be doing their things and we will see what happens. If people can't get their self runners going chances are they will remember my comments about doing a proper generator power output measurement and go back and take a look. I did see Romero changing the settings on the DC-to-DC converter and the way the setup responded. I am aware of the filter capacitor and I just posted about how it is energy-neutral. Because of that you can be aware that it's there but still discuss the circuit without it for a second just for purposes of simplification. MileHigh

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #32 on: 2011-05-07, 16:18:17 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Romero has his own forum: http://underservice.org/index.php?board=5.0 He shares a lot of info here. I know of a working Mueller replication that is OU and that required development of a special core material for the electromagnets, very critical timing, and lots of tuning. Someone else tried to replicate this replication and was almost killed when one of the large magnets came off the rotor. Some may know who I speak of. The ferromagnetic core material switched very fast with no remanance (spelling?), and was non-conductive. Side note: If it works, I would not expect it to work with a conductive flywheel. Anyone building one check for the static field on the flywheel. You may find that increasing this static field gets interesting. Side note 2: my friend keeps his running in a lexan box - in case something comes loose.

Peterae	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #33 on: 2011-05-07, 16:21:53 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3961	I'm out of this one for now. It's a shame he turned down Dave's offer to come and help, this indicates 1 of either 2 things, it's a fraud or he doesn't want us to know the true way it works. Considering there's a switched mode psu on the magnacoaster device and a mains extension lead under the table with something plugged in, my best guess right now is that the magnacoaster psu is on, a hall sensor on the magna is picking up pulses from the spinning rotor and is firing magnetic fields from that large stack of neo's, think about it, these types of motors can be greater than 75% efficient, so he starts it on a lead acid and once the momentum is there it just needs an external 25% to maintain running, this could be coupled from the magna device quiet easily i think. Hope i am wrong but am now waiting more info.

Peterae	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #34 on: 2011-05-07, 16:44:40 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3961	Thanks G Well the web site looks real good with loads of devices built, seems like an honest guy, my hope is raised somewhat.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #35 on: 2011-05-07, 17:46:20 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: EMdevices on 2011-05-07, 17:25:24 RomeroUK is answering a lot of questions on the overunity.com forum. I'm reading it just now, and came across a few instances where he says: adjust the magnet on top of the coils to eliminate rotor drag. this is very interesting, perhaps it's not just the 8 vs 9, magnet vs coil ratio? The neodymium magnets he is using would certainly saturate the ferrite, so perhaps this is a lot more interesting than I thought. EM Yeah but the problem here is that we have to be operating under the assumption that playing with the magnet positioning on top of the pick-up coils modifies the amount of cogging, but that doesn't eliminate the rotor drag. I think that anybody that has experimented with a pulse motor would agree with this. In the strictest sense cogging is energy neutral. The pull-in equals the pull-back as the rotor magnet passes the pick-up coil/stator magnet arrangement. We also know that reducing the cogging reduces the mechanical stresses on the bearings and the unwanted and useless vertical torque on the rotor. That in itself makes for a smoother rotation but it remains energy neutral. You can say that there are two drags on the rotor. The first is the bearing and air friction and that's a given. The second is related to the actual power output going into the load. In simplified terms you can say that every time the drive coils are energized there is given pick-up coil that is pushing current through the light bulb load. That creates Lenz' law drag on the rotor. The drive coil energizes and the battery pushes current through the drive coil and that results in a pick-up coil exporting power into the light bulb load by pushing current through the filament resistor. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-05-07, 18:21:15 by MileHigh »

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #36 on: 2011-05-07, 18:13:19 »
Group: Guest	For those of us having some real experience with such motors and modified (some say 'switched' - perhaps more correct is 'redirected' PM fields.... Has anyone noticed how the device tends to run backwards during some startups and make a good deal of noise or vibration when running backwards? Pole counts between the rotor and stator: It is almost always a good idea to have an even count on one and odd on the other. Yes, this does reduce cogging. Coils: They look to me to be coils removed from relays. Some show signs of a bit more sloppy wind. Perhaps he had to wind a few himself? Redirected attraction: He may be timing the coil pulse to make the coil core partially invisible to the attached magnet. Then that magnet would attract the next nearest rotor magnet. In any case, interesting.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #37 on: 2011-05-07, 18:35:41 »
Group: Guest	There is a pretty good comparison between a regular electrical transformer with a primary and a secondary and any pulse motor that has a similar configuration to Romero's variation on a Muller replication. For an electrical transformer, the primary puts energy into the ferrite core and the secondary extracts that energy from the core. So the ferrite core is the "middle man" in the energy transaction. Power flows into the core and it stores that energy. That stored energy then is transferred into the secondary and then into the load. With the motor, the equivalent to the ferrite core is the spinning rotor. Otherwise look how similar it is: The drive coils are like the transformer primary. The drive coils pump power into the rotor and it is stored in the spinning of the rotor. The spinning rotor then discharges that stored energy into the pick-up coils, which are like the transformer secondary. The pick-up coils export power into the load. So the Romero motor has coils on the input side and coils on the output side, just like an electrical transformer has a primary coil and a secondary coil. The core in an electrical transformer does not give you a visible indication of how much energy is stored in it but the "core" of a pulse motor does, it's the RPMs of the spinning rotor. MileHigh

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #38 on: 2011-05-07, 18:55:28 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Everyone overlooks the electric field generated on the rotor. Instead, they think it is some sort of magnetic thing going on, but it is the interaction of the two that allows magnification.

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #39 on: 2011-05-08, 01:53:54 »
Group: Guest	Lots of theories to consider. It is just a transformer..... I completely disagree. Sure, there is some of that going on but to reduce it to a transformer? Sorry. Rotating charge on the rotor..... If the coils were a Helmholtz set and the rotor disc diameter didn't go beyond the coil diameter I would consider it possible. I don't see how Lorentz would allow it on this setup. I'm waiting to see if this 'self-running' is possible without the magnets

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #40 on: 2011-05-08, 02:38:46 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	From what I see, there is no device without the stator magnets. This is essentially a repulsion motor, or depending on how strong the coil pulse is, it may be a repulsion-attraction-repulsion motor. .99 --------------------------- "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

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #41 on: 2011-05-08, 02:42:56 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Here are a couple more diagrams added at OU: ------------------------ Romerouk's Muller Replication rotor_and_driver_coil_setup.gif (133.54 kB, 1106x898 - viewed 1813 times.) Romerouk's Muller Replication Unbenannt.jpg (95.48 kB, 1000x1000 - viewed 1639 times.) --------------------------- "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

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #42 on: 2011-05-08, 02:51:00 »
Group: Guest	WaveWatcher: Quote It is just a transformer..... I completely disagree. Sure, there is some of that going on but to reduce it to a transformer? Sorry. I didn't say that it was a transformer or try to reduce it to a transformer, I was just pointing out similarities. Today Romerouk said that however you choose to drive the rotor was irrelevant, just try to do it as efficiently as possible. So he is saying that all of the action is in the spinning rotor interaction with the pick-up coils. So this actually gives us an opportunity to reduce the setup to a ridiculously simple model. The model is a rotor magnet passing by a pick-up coil arrangement that has some extra magnets. The truth is the extra magnets are almost irrelevant except for the influence that they can have on the energy-neutral cogging. Since the magnetic fields from the magnets are static and unchanging, they exert no influence on anything else. So we are left, if you assume that this is all true, that a moving magnet on the rotor produces over unity in the pick-up coil. People have built hundreds and hundreds of pulse motors before with magnets moving past pick-up coils and they have never seen any free energy. So what could possibly make Romerouk's motor-generator special? MileHigh

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #43 on: 2011-05-08, 02:51:45 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: EMdevices on 2011-05-08, 02:45:49 OMG, I just downloaded the pdf file that Stefan created with all of RomeroUK comments so far, and he tried the unit UP-SIDE DOWN, and it doesn't work so well !! wow, could be like the TPUs, and thinking about the 8/9 ratio of magnets to coils, and seeing the red wire going around the device to connect to the diode bridges, what if a "squeezing the hose" type of action is taking place? EM LOL, Have a glass of milk and let the tryptophan do its thing EM; it's probably nothing. .99 --------------------------- "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

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #44 on: 2011-05-08, 03:08:57 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-08, 02:51:00 Since the magnetic fields from the magnets are static and unchanging, they exert no influence on anything else. I don't know how you could believe this. Placing a piece of iron near a magnet changes the field said to be generated by that magnet. Why wouldn't pulsing a coil attached to the magnet change the field of that magnet? Quote So what could possibly make Romerouk's motor-generator special? When he tells me I'll let you know Since I'm not in a position to ask it may be a while.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #45 on: 2011-05-08, 03:30:24 »
Group: Guest	WaveWatcher: What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys. The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor. The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned. MileHigh

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #46 on: 2011-05-08, 03:42:19 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-08, 03:30:24 WaveWatcher: What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys. The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor. The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned. MileHigh MH, The static magnets will polarize the cores to a degree, so that must influence the interaction of the core/coil with the rotor magnets as they fly by. Furthermore, this motor will not work without those static magnets, if I understand the motor/generator operation properly. .99 --------------------------- "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

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #47 on: 2011-05-08, 04:05:09 »
Group: Guest	Poynt: You are correct. I didn't mention that partly because it was mentioned by Romero and others at the start of the main thread. The partially polarized cores will have a different B-H curve as a result of this. This will result in the rotor magnets being less attracted to the cores themselves. This arguably can fall under the umbrella of changing the nature of the cogging. One can assume that this will also slightly affect the amount of flux that cuts the through the coils because of the changed B-H curve of the core and hence that will affect the coil output waveform. Once you build a motor, you can easily test this. Just hijack two pick-up coils and remove them from the motor circuit. Configure one pick-up coil with the extra magnets and the other without. Connect the outputs of the two coils to your two scope channels and compare the two waveforms while the motor runs on reduced cylinders. I would expect that there would be a marginal difference at best between the two voltage traces. Anyway, not really wanting to put a damper on the "honeymoon" but I will predict that over the next few weeks no replicators will be able to produce self-runners. There is going to be some drama. MileHigh

EMdevices	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #48 on: 2011-05-08, 04:20:25 »
Hero Member Posts: 805	Yes, the secret is in the biasing magnets, I'm on this like a hawk, already brainstorming like mad over here B-H curves and all. I'm out of milk P99 EM P.S. If you look at how he biases the core relative to the magnets on the rotor, you notice that the rotor magnets are in opposition. So the B-H curve is traversed from a higher H value to a lower H value and back, as I show below in the graph drawn below his original graphic. This traversal from high to low and back is very significant, but the general accepted benefit of biasing a core is to reduce hysteresis losses. However, I think more than this is happening as I've expounded before on B-H curve interactions and saturation. Notice that RomeroUK did say the gap and biasing is critical. So maybe reducing the hysteresis losses and providing a very efficient motor function along with a Muller style no cogging 8/9 ratio, finally proved useful. ------------------------ Romerouk's Muller Replication romeroukmotor_operation.GIF (16.09 kB, 379x544 - viewed 1749 times.) « Last Edit: 2011-05-08, 04:47:26 by EMdevices »

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #49 on: 2011-05-08, 05:29:57 »
Group: Guest	There is a good question about the self-running clip. When he switches the DC-to-DC converter output to a lower voltage the rotor slows down a lot. So that means the voltage output from the pick-up coils goes down a lot. And that means the voltage feed to the input of the DC-to-DC converter also goes down. A lower input voltage to the DC-to-DC converter means that it has to draw more input current to maintain a fixed output voltage and associated power output. That could get very dicey so it would be interesting to see what the input voltage to the converter is at the lower RPM. Note when he switches back to a higher output voltage the motor seems to speed up just fine and the DC-to-DC converter requires even more input current when this happens because now it has to output a higher voltage which will result in higher output power. Note that most likely the DC-to-DC converter was designed to produce a lower output voltage as compared to the input voltage. We can assume that it can't produce a higher output voltage as compared to the input voltage. If you wanted to fake this all that you would have to do is connect a hidden battery supply to the full-wave rectifier output positive and negative rails. You can see the wire bus that connects all of the rectifiers together in a semicircle on the top of the motor. The positive and negative rails are the perfect place to inject power because the diodes in the full-wave bridge rectifiers prevent current from flowing in that direction. The setup is a rat's nest of wires which is perfect camouflage. Just sayin'.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 37

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-26, 21:37:58

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2