EMdevices:
I thought we settled this already? Have you not looked at his circuit and noticed the filter on the output. I told you this already in a previous post, the bulk of the output power is DC not AC, due to this filter. Are you familiar with filter theory and how the time constant smooths a waveform? And how about the further smoothing of the ripple in the electromechanical gages he uses, with their large time constants?
Have you seen the waveform? I assume that the answer is no because we all are in the same boat. All we can say right now is that we can assume that the waveform has a DC component and an AC component and most likely the AC component is small. But the truth is we really don't know. The moment you have AC going into a resistive load you need to do an instantaneous voltage times instantaneous current calculation as the basis for your power measurement. An alternative is to use a true-RMS multimeter which will do the same thing.
So measuring the voltage and current with two analog meters in this case is fundamentally wrong. On top of that I have some suspicions that under certain conditions analog meters are non-linear.
Another issue is this: Asking for a second measurement because the first one is flawed is a good thing. Even if the first measurement was good, double-checking it with a true-RMS digital multimeter would be a good thing. Why do over unity enthusiasts instinctively and reflexively resist requests to make better measurements or to make double-checking measurements? Think about it, it makes no sense.
The power output measurement in the first clip is no good.
Why did Edisons new lightbulb material work when thousands didn't work before?
You are making an apples and oranges comparison here and it's wrong. A rotor magnet flying past a pick-up coil in a Bedini motor is fundamentally the same as a rotor magnet flying past a pick-up coil in Romero's motor. All of the believers and replicators will have to do some soul searching about that one. There is simply nothing at all in Romero's Muller replication to suggest that it will produce over unity. If some of the replicators are competent with respect to making measurements, the measurements will bear this out.
Beyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy. Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?
I'm not sure what analysis you refer too, but I can do an analysis that shows extra energy coming in. You see, our analyses are based on theories based on experiments, if this is something new, and I believe it is, then we need new theories and new analyses.
Please go ahead and show me your analysis that shows extra energy coming in. What kind of energy is "coming in?" From where? What experiments? What theories? If you have some links that would be great.
So the 8/9 magnet/coil ratio is not special? you see that in any standard generator out there?
Biasing the core of a generator is so commonplace it's standard practice right?
Pulsing some coils and generating from others is such an un-special configuration you can sell me a few on Amazon right?
It's not special. It's just a method of staggering the outputs from the pick-up coils in time. Big deal.
You never see biasing of the core of a generator because in real life that's useless and does nothing. The only place you are are going to see that done is on the free energy forums.
Pulsing coils and storing the energy in a rotor and extracting that energy with pick-up coils is another thing that you will only see on the free energy forums.
MH, it's not good to be negative, let it go man. When a major discovery arrives, it's paradigm changing, it will shock some and some will never accept it.
I'm not being negative, I am just being realistic and sensible. Watch as the weeks go by and nobody can make a self-runner. You will start to see my comments in a different light.
You realy don't read what I say, or perhaps you don't understand. That's why I told you to read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them. I'm going to say it again.
BIASING THE FERRITE CORES WITH THE MAGNETS MINIMIZES HYSTERISIS LOSSES WHICH CAUSES UNECESSARY DRAG ON THE ROTOR!
Let's take another look at this. Let's suppose that I accept that biasing the ferrite cores with magnets does what you say above.
Ok, fine, so what does that give you?
It gives you this: It reduces the rotational friction on the spinning rotor by a very slight amount. Let's say that there are three components to the rotational friction, 1) air friction, 2) bearing friction, 3) hysteresis losses in the cores.
So you have slightly reduced the drag on the motor but you are still left with air drag, bearing drag, and reduced hysteresis drag.
So EMdevices, what is so profound about that that you jumped up to a really big font? Does it help the system achieve over unity or does it just marginally reduce the losses associated with the rotational friction?
MileHigh
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication (Read 510664 times)
