PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 00:32:25
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 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 37
Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication  (Read 510790 times)
Group: Guest
I wonder sometimes ......

Where exactly does lightning come from?


Of course it would be entirely impossible to create those conditions within a controlled envoronment, so dont even try.

It would have nothing to do with magnetic fields would it?

Of course we know it is just the clouds rubbing together ! silly me
   
Group: Guest
Skycollection posted a preliminary test clip for his build:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxMbCU7O8c

He does beautiful clean builds with really nice materials.

It's preliminary so I don't really have any comments except to mention one thing.

Note that he used a big capacitor for the load for his preliminary test.  I fear that a lot of people will start to use capacitors for the real testing.  This is to be avoided at all costs.

The best load would be made with some kind of combination of power resistors.  The next-best load would be a light bulb.

A capacitor as a test load actually makes no sense.  As the capacitor gets charged to it's maximum voltage it "disappears" and does not even appear to the generator as a load any more.

Lo and behold, the "bad guy" is giving some sound practical advice to the replicators.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Mags:

I think the read count on this thread went up by about 900 in 24 hours.  Who knows, it could be the Muller enthusiasts on OU pushing the read count up.  Dontcha think?

MileHigh

Maybe you should stop clicking 'Refresh'?  ;D

As an alternative I suggest you read up on the other reasons to use Litz wire, beyond skin-effect theory.

Although I seriously doubt any energy amplification in Bruce's work I would expect lower energy losses using his posted methods, regardless of the applied frequencies.




   
Group: Guest
Quote
1.  He did not account for the larger number of turns in his coil.

2.  He was wrong when he said one core-biasing magnet orientation produces more power than the other.

3.  He was wrong when he suggested that there was a relationship between the cogging and the output power.

1) it does not matter. The before and after experiment were all on the same coil. Others have measured their coil and seen that for the equivalent "SIZE" of coil it was not producing 12 volts. My coil is only equivalent in size not in turns or weight or area of copper. The concept is to prove that a "small coil can easily produce 12 volts".

2) And indeed it did. I clearly showed that on the video even though in rough ways. You could post a video yourself showing more professional measurement and proving my demonstration wrong! One can see it right away more light on the LEDs by simply putting the biasing magnet. You did not notice it?

3) Off course there is a relationship between the too. A child can see that!

Look, if cogging is, let's say really bad, it will in a certain time x work input produce much less power, simply because the rotor will stop spinning really fast. While if you remove any cogging it will also on the same time x work input produce more simply because the motor will spin longer times and therefore produce more over time. IT is simple logic.

There is a balance point where after the top of the bell it will no longer work and go on the other direction. The biasing is simply a mechanism to find that optimal point for more power out versus input.

Now the real thing is this question: Do you really know all that one must know about magnet biasing coils? Really? There is nothing new here? I can see dynamics here never expressed anywhere in books or videos. Nothing simple really. It is a very dynamic process once you put that biasing magnet on the back.

And no, I am not mad with your challenges MileHigh. I kind of like it as long we keep it cool and logical and respectful. :)

Fausto.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I wonder sometimes ......

Where exactly does lightning come from?


Of course it would be entirely impossible to create those conditions within a controlled envoronment, so dont even try.

It would have nothing to do with magnetic fields would it?

Of course we know it is just the clouds rubbing together ! silly me


The whole point of bringing up Tesla's monitoring of magnetic fields produced by a storm several miles away was to tell you that electric fields can interact and enhance magnetic fields.  You are so caught up in the drama of the roses that you can't fell the bee stinging your arse.

This "condition" is quite easy to create if you get off your ass.
   
Group: Guest
Hi Fausto,

Thanks for your reply.  A few comments...

Quote
1) it does not matter. The before and after experiment were all on the same coil. Others have measured their coil and seen that for the equivalent "SIZE" of coil it was not producing 12 volts. My coil is only equivalent in size not in turns or weight or area of copper. The concept is to prove that a "small coil can easily produce 12 volts".

You are completely missing the point here.  This is pure Faraday's Law and nothing more.  It has nothing to do with the fact that it is is a "small" coil.  If you compare two different coils that are approximately the same size and one generates a much high voltage than the other then you have look at why that is happening.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html#c1

Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil. No matter how the change is produced, the voltage will be generated. The change could be produced by changing the magnetic field strength, moving a magnet toward or away from the coil, moving the coil into or out of the magnetic field, rotating the coil relative to the magnet, etc.

Faraday's law is a fundamental relationship which comes from Maxwell's equations. It serves as a succinct summary of the ways a voltage  (or emf) may be generated by a changing magnetic environment. The induced emf in a coil is equal to the negative of the rate of change of magnetic flux times the number of turns in the coil. It involves the interaction of charge with magnetic field.

The transformer coil that you tested had many more turns than Romero's pick-up coil and that's one of the main reasons that you could generate that high a voltage.  Repeat the same test with a coil that is hand-wound and the same gauge wire that Romero used and approximately the same size and you will be in for surprise.  The main difference between the two coils will be the number of turns and that will explain why the observed voltages are different.  This is absolutely incontrovertible.

Quote
2) And indeed it did. I clearly showed that on the video even though in rough ways. You could post a video yourself showing more professional measurement and proving my demonstration wrong! One can see it right away more light on the LEDs by simply putting the biasing magnet. You did not notice it?

I'll watch the clip again soon and tell you what I see.  "Rough ways" is part of the problem.  Your ability to hold the coil in approximately the same place is limited because in one case you are trying to compensate for attraction and in another case you are trying to compensate for repulsion.  As long as the brightness and the length of the flashing is compatible and knowing the limits of human perception for detecting these differences is one factor.  More importantly, I think in your clip you manage to show a few good scope shots for both orientations and the look very comparable.

Put it this way, the understanding of magnetic interactions says the power generation should be the same.  You made a "rough" test and as long as they look "roughly" the same then you've got nothing Fausto.

Like I said I'll look at the clip again but as researcher you absolutely want to avoid fooling yourself.  You know the story of the horse that could do addition and subtraction?  If you don't know the story you should look it up.

Quote
3) Off course there is a relationship between the too. A child can see that!

There is no relationship Fausto.

For the output power:

For the spinning rotor, the only thing that determines how much energy is transferred into the pick-up coil is the difference in rotational speed before it passes by the pick-up coil and after it passes by the pick-up coil.  It is as simple as that because the energy reduction in the slower spinning rotor has to go somewhere.  Where it goes is "into" the Lenz law drag.  And when you have Lenz law drag that means you have transferred some energy into the pick-up coil.

For the cogging:

On the other hand, the cogging is always energy neutral, and has nothing to do with the decrease in energy in the spinning rotor.  We are going to ignore any possible increased bearing friction that may occur from the cogging.  Depending on the type of cogging, the rotor will first speed up and then slow down as it passes the polarized core of the pick-up coil, or, alternatively, it will slow down then speed up as it passes the polarized core.

The output power event causes the rotor to slow down and extracts energy from the rotor.  The cogging event does not cause the rotor to slow down and does not extract energy from the rotor.

Even though the two events happen at the same time, they are superimposed on top of each other and have nothing to do with each other.  This happens all the time in electrical circuits and in mechanical systems.  You need to try to "open your mind" and see this because this is the true reality that describes the dynamics of this system.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
My comments.

1 - again my goal was to show small coil and 12 volts. My video shows that. Concerning your description of physics, your're right and irrelevant for my goal on the video. So you can not state i was wrong here.

2 - yes rough and i will build it with Litz and see it again. Where is your video? Im still showing on my roughfness the correct observations. To be proven wrong still.

3 - absolutely cogging will change output power dramaticaly. If cogging goes to the point of stopping the rotor of spinning it will be zero output power and probably increased input power. Im still right here too.

Fausto.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
MileHigh,

Why not sit back a bit and see what transpires? I think you're getting agitated and it's not healthy for anyone, mostly yourself.

Have a cool-off my friend. ;)

.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
   
Group: Guest
Fausto:

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree but I have some follow-up thoughts for you:

Quote
1 - again my goal was to show small coil and 12 volts. My video shows that. Concerning your description of physics, your're right and irrelevant for my goal on the video. So you can not state i was wrong here.

My impression was that you were trying to prove that it was feasible to generate 12 (or 15) volts with a setup that resembled Romero's setup.  If you want to change one parameter that's your choice.  I believe that any replications that are similar to Romero's including the RPMs of the rotor will not generate anything close to 12 or 15 volts.  That suggests the possibility that Romero was cheating here and connecting a power supply to the generator output to falsify the output voltage and power the motor part of the motor-generator.

Quote
2 - yes rough and i will build it with Litz and see it again. Where is your video? Im still showing on my roughfness the correct observations. To be proven wrong still.

This will be proven definitively by the replicators if they run a test with the biasing magnets and without the biasing magnets.  They can also change the polarity of the biasing magnets.  They will find that without biasing magnets, or with all biasing magnets pointing north up, or with all biasing magnets pointing north down, the generator output will remain essentially the same.  Please try to do that test because I don't expect many replicators will actually test for that.  That's really unfortunate because that means that they are talking Romero's word for it and Romero is wrong.  These concepts were all proven more than 100 years ago.

Quote
3 - absolutely cogging will change output power dramaticaly. If cogging goes to the point of stopping the rotor of spinning it will be zero output power and probably increased input power. Im still right here too.

You are mixing together the concept of the cogging causing extra friction in the bearings and unwanted vibration in the rotor which will slow it down with the "pure" concept of the cogging being an energy-neutral effect that does not change the average speed of the rotor.  I am more focused on the "pure" definition of the cogging.  Naturally the output power will decrease if regular friction or friction caused by cogging slows it down.  In the final analysis though, the output power is determined by the RPMs of the rotor and other factors.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Poynt,

Don't worry.  I know what some of the meta issues are that you are concerned about.  I am not getting overly worked up I am just saying it like it is in a methodical and admittedly sometimes forceful manner.

I think that it has been covered pretty well now so don't be surprised if I slack off.  The people that are really steaming are the ones that want to build this thing and are reading what I am stating.  I am sorry for that but I think that the exercise has some merit, even though that may not become apparent until after some time passes.

I am not here to bash the concept of free energy in a generic sense.  I can see like usual that it's very hard to engage people and share new ideas and discuss the merits or lack thereof of various ideas.  You had the same experience with Rosemary and it got pretty testy a while back.

Anyway, only time will tell if what I am saying sinks in.  Let's assume that some of the replicators have read what I said.  If even a small subset of them try some of the tests that I have proposed that might help a lot.  The test to see what happens with and without the biasing magnets that I just mentioned comes to mind right away.

Again, I am fully aware of the "big picture" and there is no point in repeating some of these concepts at this point.  By the same token some of the repetition is related to the fact that there isn't even a sense that a dent has been made in the replicator facade.  There is a long-shot that some of what I said will sink in and be taken more seriously as the replicator frustration sets in.

In terms of the even bigger picture, I may be greatly reducing or even eliminating my contribution to the whole scene at the end of this round which should be over in few months.  There is a very strong sense of "been there - done that" and there is nowhere else to go.  I am sure that will make a lot of people happy.

So what appears to be passion is more a methodical laying out of the facts, granted with some repetition, coupled with some genuine indignation that a bunch of people have been led to jump through hoops yet again.  I know that those are charged words in themselves but they are "tough love" words and the message will probably not get through.

I engaged Fausto in the sense that he was the first out of the block to investigate something related to the claim and his conclusions were wrong and surprise surprise, nobody on the other side said anything.

I hope this makes sense to you.  Seriously, you probably saw the last blast. It's getting boring and the fun has lost a lot of wind in it's sails.  But I am absolutely not getting overworked up about this, just somewhat forceful and a bit overbearing.  Barely a dent made in the mind-share of the replicators, and I was hoping for at least a glimmer.

Who cares, I already know the outcome.  One thing I have never done is "spin."  I say it like I see it and yet I am fully aware that other see me as a big-time spinner through their own prism.  The end is just over the horizon.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Hi Milehigh,

Although I agree with you about the outcome of this particular Muller dynamo replication, learning should be fun so just sit back and let them have fun experimenting. Those that believe in self running devices simply from watching video's need to learn through their own endeavours.

Hoppy
   
Group: Guest
Hello MileHigh,

it is good what you doing. I admire that.

Look I DO see your points and they are correct. I do agree that biasing will not change the output power directly. I do somehow agree that Litz may not change but there is some evidence (to be tested still by me) that shows that it will change the outcome somehow in not conventional ways and I do agree that the "cogging" in pure sense is net zero. I actually posted in my new thread at ou (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10716.0) exactly that.

When the poles on the rotor and the biasing are the same cogging becomes net zero (or almost because of losses) and does not interfere with the output.

Now, what we are disagreeing here is HOW i am using those very known facts to a more than "the sum is the collection of the parts".

So allow me to go very slow on my logic. First I want to show to the replicators that indeed is "possible to create 12 volts from a small coil". That's it, I am not saying there is something magical about the coil or the Litz or whatever it is only that it is possible at that small size to indeed get 12 volts and who knows how much power. You can see that, can't you? There is a building block, I think, for the Romero's motor.

The biasing will help smooth out the NET ZERO effect so it will be indeed NET ZERO power or losses because of the pure sense of cogging. Off course once one puts a load on the coil we have Lenz's law creating the second effect (you mention on your previous post) that is somehow masked by the pure cogging. I KNOW THAT.

What is important is that the BIASING will HELP in getting to the balance point where using a load will still perform with minimum cogging and NET ZERO because of the cogging.

What I am doing here is playing with the parameters in a conventional manner to get to the best of the sum of its parts.

Now, put the hat of an engineer that have to solve this problem, being true or not. To get this motor running to its best. That's what I am doing.

Take care,

Fausto.

   
Group: Guest
Fausto,

Please, also consider proximity effects between turns and winding layers. This is a consideration in high power and pulse transformer design. The winding design has the basic concepts for the use of Litz wire but the windings will have little to no interleave at low frequency AC applications.

These windings can be described much as BruceTPU describes (and SM). This may also include a specific spacing between turns and layers of a coil. The object is to minimize resistance, impedance, eddy currents generated in adjacent conductors and distance traveled. This practice is a bit out of the realm of most coil builders or electrical engineers. It is also hotly debated because it reduces inductance while increasing the output voltage of transformers beyond the series vs. parallel arguments.

As far as adding a magnet to a core... this practice is used to decrease the inductance, increase Q and minimize the need for winding mass. The effects are much the same as using non-interleaved Litz.

Whether or not such practices apply to a given project must be determined.

Of course, such practices are of little use for steady-state DC unless you are looking for very low resistance for the DC component of a signal with mixed AC/DC.



   
Group: Guest
@WaveWatcher,

YES. I agree. I think we need low resistance coils here and as you mention, those parametrs are ways to achieve that. Basing will obviously help at that.

Fausto.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3961


Buy me some coffee
something that has always stuck in my mind about the HRR motor was he showed it as OU, but when he tried to replicate it, he could not get it to work, so they resorted to dismantling the coil to see what was special, the conclusion was that there may have been shorted turns that made it OU but because they unwound it they couldn't be sure.

Something similar happened to SM, he said something like when he had a working coil, they tried to reproduce it but ended up unwinding the original to see what was special, they then realized and were able to recreate it, at a guess what would you learn from unwinding a coil, well that also could have been a shorted turn.

So just in case Romero has trouble scaling up, then before he rips up the old coil, i would recommend monitoring inductance or resistance as each coil is unwound, just in case this is also the case.
It's a long shot but i would prefer to mention this just in case it's important.There maybe something hidden from theory in a shorted turn coil under certain conditions.

I will also add that shorted turns in Lineoutput TV transformer can result in flames and smoke, in scan coils it may be possible to couple the frame stage to the line stage, specially in the early days of tv design this could be very dangerous, but as time went on each individual circuit had overcurrent and monitoring circuit's to shut down the disfunctional circuit's to protect from fire and damage.

I think when you look back at what SM said about the TV exploding then the most likely event would be a shorted line/frame yoke coil assembly, most of the circuits were isolated and functional in separate circuits, the frame oscillator and horizontal oscillator both drove the scan coil yoke, so it's logical and common to think any current mixing would happen here
   
Group: Guest
Who knows?

I have seen some of the most unthinkable causes for unexpected behavior(electric, logic, network & mechanical systems). Nowadays names like RCA (Root Cause Analysis) and 6-Sigma are used so it looks like we are doing magical things. B.S.

The job is just harder now because we must document everything and follow guidelines created by the Software & Bean-counter folks.

Not one of them know which end of a screw-driver to hold. I wouldn't complain so much if I hadn't been called in to correct their mistakes, as well.

Just think about this....

What if we tried to devise a "transformer" that made positive use of eddy current generation vs. common EM induction. It wouldn't have an iron core - would it?

There is a lot going on when you consider eddy currents. I believe the majority of it is still speculation.

It would explain how many folks have been able to a stick copper or brass rod in place of the core for an inductor and then light an incandescent lamp with it. Of course, I'm sure all of those were declared fake as well.

 

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
 Today an interesting post appeared at OU -- among the many coming in for this replication.
I notice .99 posts over there occasionally, too.

Here's what caught my eye:

Quote
Here is a small snippet from an email I received a few weeks ago. I have edited out the names. I thought this was very telling.

I know a man xxxxxxxx He made it big in the xxxxx business. He sold out to some international conglomerate and is set for life. As part of his humanitarian contribution to the world he decided to search for a true free energy technology and do what it takes to finance it and develop it into something workable, hoping to do an end run around the MIB. He doesn’t do all his work on the Internet. For the last two years he has traveled to the prospective inventors with about $50,000 in Tektronix energy analyzers and other support equipment (including the FET probes). When I talked to him last, about 4 months ago at xxx here in xxxx, he said he had personally interview 118 individuals in 10 different countries. He said:

4% are outright Fraud (I thought that number was low)
48% have instrumentation errors and 80% of those are with current analysis – especially pulsed current.
48% are delusional about their accomplishments and the manner in which they evaluate their results

It’s those last 48% that clog up the forums and discussion groups. You can show them with the latest equipment that their setup is only running at 70% efficiency and they will continue to think they have made a breakthrough and want you to provide them a research grant and buy stock in their company. So far he has found two legitimate OU devices one that operated at the 1 watt power level and another at 1000 watts. He attempted to get the second one together with a prince in Europe that was ready to finance a manufacturing effort, but the inventor wanted 60 million Euros up front. So far the people with the working inventions are impossible to do business with. No wonder so many inventors go to the grave with their secret. This is the same problem that Stan myers had.

-- toranorod

Is anyone here attempting a replication?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Professor,

I would agree with that 4%, 48%, 48% assessment, especially the latter two.

I don't think anyone here is trying Romero's version of the Muller generator. I think we're all watching OU to see if anyone there can achieve any results that may indicate Romero wasn't faking it. So far there hasn't been any definite proof either way as far as I know.

It would also seem that there is still confusion as to whether Romero's motor was working in repulsion or attraction.

.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
   
Group: Guest
Romero explained that the drive means has nothing to do with his finely tuned device , except for making it self contained for a self run demo.

Either he was faking it or he was legitimate.

There is no doubt, that if he was not faking it, the self run with the globe needs no measurement.

Who in their right mind would want to be surrounded entirely by greedy men, well educated disbelievers, and worshipers ?

There an old book around about one such fellow


   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
 How about the two "successes", .99?    :)

 Lidmotor has just posted a semi-replication:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdDFVUfX5jg&feature=uploademail

He notes it is not OU and explains the problem he is having...
   
Group: Guest
I've been watching as well.

None of the claimed replications would qualify as a replication, in my opinion. All seem to be a variation on Bedini's fantasies.

As far as magnet orientations goes.... I have the opinion that RomeroUK used the term 'repulsion' to indicate where most of the rotational force came from. Also, his device used both repulsion and attraction.

Where was it stipulated that the generator coils were the ones with the magnets? That doesn't make sense to me. The magnets would only be useful on the drive coils.

At least this is the way they work on toys with kicker magnet/coil combinations.

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I've been watching as well.

None of the claimed replications would qualify as a replication, in my opinion. All seem to be a variation on Bedini's fantasies.

As far as magnet orientations goes.... I have the opinion that RomeroUK used the term 'repulsion' to indicate where most of the rotational force came from. Also, his device used both repulsion and attraction.

Where was it stipulated that the generator coils were the ones with the magnets? That doesn't make sense to me. The magnets would only be useful on the drive coils.

At least this is the way they work on toys with kicker magnet/coil combinations.


Romero post on his own website, indicated attraction and repulsion depending on the position of the rotor.  I could not find a Google cache of anything to this effect, but you might contact "Baroutologos".   I think this is prety typical for all who try to build a magnetic generator that might be OU.

The ideal device should not require anything to physically rotate.

The Energia Celeste Patent has more detail for an OU motor.
   
Group: Guest

/SNIP
The ideal device should not require anything to physically rotate.

The Energia Celeste Patent has more detail for an OU motor.


Right !
I wonder if anybody ever tried a replication of that.
The big problem would be finding a simple way to modulate the H-V for the magnets.


   
Group: Guest
Thanks.

I have a basic rule set for these motors.

One of them is -- If it needs electronics it can't be OU. Another is -- If it doesn't start without a push it isn't OU.

Since I have an open mind, I'll not slam a project from another unless my personally collected evidence is clear that it won't work.

I don't consider the text of my library as 'personally collected' until the experiment is confirmed on my bench. The same goes for YouTube videos.



There isn't enough information available for an Energia Celeste build. Not for me anyway.

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr

There isn't enough information available for an Energia Celeste build. Not for me anyway.


there is enough for proof of concept
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 37
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 00:32:25