Romerouk's Muller Replication

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

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

2024-11-27, 02:30:53
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

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 27 ... 37

« previous next »

Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication (Read 510850 times)

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #275 on: 2011-05-16, 22:08:11 »
Group: Guest	Yes, I'm familiar with it. I believe the patent said 'at least one winding' but it should say 'at least three separate windings and delayed pulses. I have the impression the whole thing works on the premise that the rebounding magnetic field rebounds at a tiny fraction of c. I've never found that to be true. Something that should start a wildfire is the rebound time can be considerably less than c. The problem is the domains in a magnetic core do not like to change polarity meaning the BH curve is incredibly narrow if there is one at all. It does work better with bare windings and pulses in the low kV range with the core being a poor conductor. I have wondered how Peter's snap-crakle 'n pop would work on it.

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #276 on: 2011-05-16, 23:28:09 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	How is it that an electric pulse can multiply a magnetic field thousands of times? EDIT: changed "magnify" to "multiply"

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #277 on: 2011-05-17, 00:04:14 »
Group: Guest	I can't say it will multiply it a certain amount of times but it can increase it. Why that is is still a mystery to me but I have a theory. That theory doesn't have enough backbone or enough time on my bench to be worth a discussion. The final answer may dig into the weird science of spintronics.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #278 on: 2011-05-17, 00:14:07 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy: I don't know how you can possibly believe some of those "patents" that you post sometimes but that's just me. Quote Experimental results have shown that the resultant magnetic field has and amplitude far higher (eg. several thousand times) than the field produced by the magnet.... Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field. Meanwhile, here is a moment of brilliance from Mscoffman on OU: Quote The DC2DC converter is a good idea for regulating voltage. I'd like to cautiously suggest that if there is a toroid in the converter circuit that it itself might be overunity. Amazingly enough Romerouk put in an appearance today, seemingly not concerned with the threats to himself and his family considering that the MIB must be monitoring the thread. Perhaps the "MIB Pope" waived Romero's offenses? No comments about this from the forum contributors considering all the alarm they expressed about the MIB a week ago, almost like some kind of mass hypnosis event is taking place. Interesting comment from Baroutologos: Quote i know Romero more than anyone here i guess so i feel that i somehow should answer that question. I have replicated more than 3 or 4 OU promising devices conceived by Romero, being all of them short of OU. Afterwards, indeed, he admitted his inspirations were not OU but close to it. (not selfrunning or anything promised or claimed to had achieved by them) Nothing conclusive here of course. However, this is at least consistent with my pet theory that Romero succumbed to an irrational compulsion from years of frustration and faked his motor-generator. Finally, the boys on OU are agonizing because they are not sure what the configuration is. Surprise surprise, it happens again and again and again and the enthusiasts are left to speculate and clutch at straws. MileHigh

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #279 on: 2011-05-17, 00:27:17 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-17, 00:14:07 Grumpy: I don't know how you can possibly believe some of those "patents" that you post sometimes but that's just me. Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field. "scalar multiplication" increasing the scalar variable will "multiply" the vectors - a rather "catchy" idea Our very fast, hv electric pulse does this much like the air rushing in to fill the void of a bubble when it is popped. For an instant, I pulled more space into my work area and increased the scale, so to speak, multiplying the magnetic field. Not a very clear explanation, but it does increase dramatically.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #280 on: 2011-05-17, 00:42:40 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy: I have noticed that you often use the term "scalar" standalone in some of your technical discussions, as if it meant something. Note the definition: Quote sca·lar –adjective 1. representable by position on a scale or line; having only magnitude: a scalar variable. The term is meaningless unless you associate it with something tangible. If you believe so strongly that some kind of multiplication of some variable takes place can't you do some real-world measurements and share the data on the forum? I am under the impression that you have a bench and do experiments. So the scalar what will multiply what vectors? This is all rhetorical, you don't have to answer. Please at least think about what I said. MileHigh

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #281 on: 2011-05-17, 00:58:21 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-17, 00:42:40 Grumpy: I have noticed that you often use the term "scalar" standalone in some of your technical discussions, as if it meant something. Note the definition: The term is meaningless unless you associate it with something tangible. If you believe so strongly that some kind of multiplication of some variable takes place can't you do some real-world measurements and share the data on the forum? I am under the impression that you have a bench and do experiments. So the scalar what will multiply what vectors? This is all rhetorical, you don't have to answer. Please at least think about what I said. MileHigh I am glad you asked: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_multiplication Quote In mathematics, scalar multiplication is one of the basic operations defining a vector space in linear algebra[1][2][3] (or more generally, a module in abstract algebra[4][5]). In an intuitive geometrical context, scalar multiplication of a real Euclidean vector by a positive real number multiplies the magnitude of the vector without changing its direction. The term "scalar" itself derives from this usage: a scalar is that which scales vectors. Scalar multiplication is different from the scalar product, which is an inner product between two vectors. I have a bench and do experiments, but I am sorely lacking when it comes to measurement, expecially of things that I am not really sure how to measure. For example, I say that I pulse a coil with HV and hodl a magnet near and that I think that the magnetic field is stronger because the magnet tries to move strongly. How might I "prove" that the magnetic field is increased and by how much it is increased. I need a method that will not be affected by the HV pulsed coil. I came up with a mechancial way that uses a sliding piece of iron and a pulley and weight, but this just shows that the field is changing and is not definitive. Compass needles respond to the electric field as well as the magnetic field, and I don't have a non-conductive compass needle.

MileHigh	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #282 on: 2011-05-17, 01:48:12 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy: I have a helpful suggestion for you. I am not sure if you are familiar with the mathematical concepts of differentiation and integration. With respect to integration you probably know that it is a form of addition. There are two simple examples that I can think of. When you take a picture with a film or a CCD camera the image sensor adds up all of the light. The light can vary during the exposure and the integrating function of the film or CCD sensor copes with that and still gives you a proper result. The other is filling up a sink with water. You can vary the water flow and the water level in the sink gives you the integration of the water flow x time. So imagine you make a loop of solid insulated wire perhaps two inches in diameter and you connect it to a length of coax that terminates in a standard BNC connector. Say you make the loop with three turns of wire. Now for step one you can run some experiments and position the loop and look at the scope display. You should see "heartbeat" spikes on the scope display that spike up and spike down whenever you have a pulse event that creates a pulsed magnetic field. Then the next step would be to feed the signal into an operational amplifier setup that you make on a small project board. The operational amplifier is configured to perform integration on the input signal. This means that there is a capacitor in the negative feedback loop of the operational amplifier that performs the actual integration. It would also need to have a reset button to zero out the integration. http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/ref/circuits/node5.html http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sboa092a/sboa092a.pdf http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-31.pdf Operational amplifiers are like gold, they really are. They do similar things to what transistors do but a 1000 times better. Continuing on, you need to connect the output of the operational amplifier to a peak detector. The reason for this is that the output from your loop for a magnetic field impulse is always going to have a positive and negative spike, and the two spikes will cancel each other out when the integration is done. So, you probably can also find an operational amplifier circuit that uses a diode as the basis for peak detection, but one more time it will be 1000 times higher in performance than a peak detector based on a diode alone. The peak detector will also have a push button to reset it. So your test sequence would be as follows: 1) Reset your integrator and your peak detector with your push buttons. 2) Fire your pulse circuit that generates the magnetic field pulse. 3) Read the voltage on the peak detector. 4) Reset your peak detector. 5) Go to step 1. The key point here is that you could adjust the input gain of your integrator and increase the size of your integrating capacitor if you need to. So it should be possible to make measurements of very high magnetic field pulses by adjusting the integrator settings. I realize that this might be advanced for you and it would even be a challenge for someone with a lot of analog bench experience. I am just giving you a rough sketch here. However, it certainly is an interesting concept. It sounds like it would be right up Giantkiller's alley also. This is not an open invitation to give anybody tech support. With a lot of work and experimentation I think it is all doable though. MileHigh

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #283 on: 2011-05-17, 02:45:32 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	That sounds simple enough, but how do you compare the base magnetic field strength to the increased field strength? If the scalar value is truly increased, and the magnetic field is multiplied, would a coil that is powered with DC (and, hence, an associated magnetic field) show increased power?

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #284 on: 2011-05-17, 04:14:37 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-05-17, 00:14:07 Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field. The second part of that statement worries me a bit. They don't react with each other but together they create a new net magnetic field? MH, You write of magnetic vector fields as if they are totally separate entities. There is attraction and repulsion but they don't react with each other? Think about those contradictory statements and ask yourself why many people can't understand things like magnetic and gravity fields. With your description I now see why you can't understand how a magnet can have an effect upon a driven coil.

ion	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #285 on: 2011-05-17, 04:22:39 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	MH As part of my process control design experience, I would build op amp integrators and differentiators as part of the PID process control loop. These were used in our product line. Not many are familiar with the nuances of good analog design, especially at microvolt signal levels. I cut my teeth with the uA709 back in '69, then moved on to lower drift precision opamps such as uA725. Chopper stabilized opamps came along and brought it all to a new level of performance in instrumentation. Today there are lots of excellent choices too numerous to mention. Yes it would be relatively easy for a well rounded analog guy to build a peak detecting integration scheme, but I think Grumpy is looking for a simpler mechanical means to indicate relative magnetic field strength. I will be giving this some thought in the days ahead. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #286 on: 2011-05-17, 04:58:37 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Ever method that I come up with is not full-proof. Take the magnetometers of Tesla and Nipher - both recording magnetic fields from storms. The measurements indicate field changes but they are not definitive. Do they change because the source has moved or changed or the properties of space have changed? This is the problem before me. The coil method that I mentioned above may be the simplest way if I can show that the "power" increased more than can be accounted for from the coil supply and the pulsed coil combined. Basically, if it shows "gain", then we have something. This gets more complicated if the output is all over the place, or if it is so low that it is lost in measurement error.

CompuTutor	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #287 on: 2011-05-17, 07:23:09 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-05-17, 00:58:21 ...I don't have a non-conductive compass needle. That alone is a topic. (Sorry to quote that out of context)

Peterae	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #288 on: 2011-05-17, 10:38:32 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3961	Hey ION I was also involved with PID temperature controllers, one of the biggest manufacturers in the UK, now taken over by a US company, I was a bench engineer in the test department for a couple of years,then subcontracted to design, prototype and build the test fixtures. Peter

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #289 on: 2011-05-17, 12:22:02 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy, The best method for measuring and plotting magnetic fields is to employ the use of a high quality Hall-Effect sensor. It takes a bit of ingenuity to minimize the effect the probe has on the field and good ones are expensive. I remember the arguments about the field plotting by Howard Johnson. Whatever folks say about him he was a solid thinker. His unbelievable results are easily repeated and confirmed. You can place a low grade Hall-Effect sensor in a fixed relative position with the wiring at right angles to the source on a non-metallic support with little more than DC power applied and the output tied to a resistor and scope probe. For an environment with a high electric field you can hollow out an aluminum can electrolytic to cover the sensor. This requires accounting for the time for eddy currents in the can to subside. All, With the backgrounds of ION and Peterae I add mine covering Power Distribution/Control, PID loops, SCADA and wave propagation. Unfortunately, all of that fun stuff has degraded recently to Root Cause Analysis and system design correction. We have an interesting list of experiences

Peterae	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #290 on: 2011-05-17, 12:38:24 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3961	Here's an interesting post by Paul-R on the delay thread http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=256.msg2939#msg2939 Imagine a coil on a stator, and a passing ferrite core on a rotor (in the style of Robert Adams). You pulse the coil to attract, and get a BEMF as the field collapses. This field will appear too quickly to help out. If there is a delay, then as the rotor's core passes, it will get pushed by the BEMF effect. There is an additional effect involving the Lenz's Law induced field. If that can be delayed by a small amount, the rotor's core will have passed an inch or so, and the Lenz reaction will help to push the rotor rather than hinder.

ion	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #291 on: 2011-05-17, 13:08:41 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Consider this: A lot of designers throw a diode across a relay coil in an effort to snub the BEMF spike and keep it from destroying the drive transistor. But this is a rather poor approach, especially if you want the relay contacts to quickly open, as the diode keeps current circulating in the coil and hence the magnetic structure releases slowly. If you have an AC load on the contacts, severe arcing will occur due to the sluggish opening of the contacts. A better approach is to use a series R-C across the coil. In this way the circulating current will snap off much quicker, the drive transistor will be protected, and the contacts will open much faster. Alternately you could use a diode in series with a parallel R-C across the coil typical of a flyback snubber. The R-C creates a slight delay in drop off of the coil current. Appropriately chosen you may get the delay required. Maybe this technique can be used to provide the timed delay of the BEMF Another idea would be to switch off the drive current, but keep the current circulating in the coil with another transistor across the coil until you desire to turn that second transistor off. Study electronic ignition systems as used on small engines (magneto's). Some of these have automatic timing advance. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Paul-R	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #292 on: 2011-05-17, 16:26:54 »
Hero Member Posts: 1579	Quote from: Peterae on 2011-05-17, 12:38:24 Here's an interesting post by Paul-R on the delay thread http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=256.msg2939#msg2939 Imagine a coil on a stator, and a passing ferrite core on a rotor (in the style of Robert Adams). You pulse the coil to attract, and get a BEMF as the field collapses. This field will appear too quickly to help out. If there is a delay, then as the rotor's core passes, it will get pushed by the BEMF effect. There is a thread somewhere on achieving this delay. No result, though. How much wire would one need in a drum of wire for the time taken for the current to pass down this wire to create a sufficient delay if the rotor was going at a fast speed (and therefore the delay time would be relatively short)?

ion	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #293 on: 2011-05-17, 16:52:24 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Here are a few methods I outlined earlier that will control the collapse of the magnetic field. The switch in the synchronous method is representative of a transistor and is opened at the moment the BEMF is required. Note that the drive will have been turned off some time earlier and the circulating current will maintain the field until you desire to release it. It would be simple to create a timing diagram and the appropriate drive signals for the mosfet and the transistor switch. Mosfets are shown as the main drive but these could also be BJT's ------------------------ Romerouk's Muller Replication Methods.jpg (30.84 kB, 466x339 - viewed 1238 times.) --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #294 on: 2011-05-17, 18:41:11 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	ION, Thanks for the snubber tips. If you haven't already, could you please add that to your thread of technical tips? Regards, .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 #295 on: 2011-05-17, 21:41:29 »
Group: Guest	ION, Another common method is to use two diodes, in series, opposing polarity. This works for AC or DC and is found across huge solenoids. The pair conduct in either direction for a very short period then look like an open circuit. They are generally high current Schottky. They were (are?) used to protect the relay contacts driving the device and still allow quick mechanical action of the device. The voltage ratings of the diodes were chosen at 10 times the operating voltage for DC (usually 24, 32 or 48) and 6 times the operating voltage for AC. A single diode wasn't acceptable for dump valves on fire control systems or fuel cutoff valves on diesel engines driving the fire pumps. Single diodes created a slow valve closure.

poynt99	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #296 on: 2011-05-17, 23:45:56 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	WW, That would be using the diodes in a zener mode, and unless carefully chosen, they could be unpredictable as to the breakover voltage. .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 #297 on: 2011-05-18, 01:10:56 »
Group: Guest	Zener mode? Yes, you can actually use zeners, too. The arrangement is called a 'clipper-diode'. Any diode pair may be used but one arrangement may function from the capacitance of the diode junctions. Another will rely mainly upon junction conduction to off time. The main purpose of ones used on high impedance solenoids in critical valve closing times were as described. The zener characteristics were of little consequence. Edit>>> I still have a few So much I've forgotten since I was working with generators.... When I started in that biz you could build your own or buy them assembled. Later, they came ready in one package. The 1N60 Series was the most common I used. I see now they are thrown under the classification of TVS diodes.

exnihiloest	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #298 on: 2011-05-18, 08:55:46 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2011-05-16, 18:52:13 there is enough for proof of concept http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5008 http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5010 The author of the patent wrote also: "Tests have been carried out with different fixed values of the period up to a minimum value about 10^-12s" 10^-12s = 1ps. In 1998 (and even now), hundreds of volts at Thz frequencies were far from the possibilities of independent inventors or small companies. Moreover at such frequencies the coils would have an incredible high impedance on the order of hundreds of megohms so no current could flow except if tremendous voltages in the tens of MV range were used but Joule losses would also be tremendous. Even at Ghz frequencies, it would be a crazy challenge. The inventor is a liar.

BEP	Re: Romerouk's Muller Replication « Reply #299 on: 2011-05-18, 11:37:11 »
Group: Guest	"In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the unit 120 generates a first voltage pulse sequence at its output terminals 125 and 135; the time interval (in the following indicated as"period") between two contiguous pulses (considering negligible their length) is fixed, and has a value related to the application and the structure of the electromagnetic device 100. Tests have been carried out with different fixed values of the period up to a minimum value about 10-l2s, but the present invention lends itself to be implemented also with not fixed periods. The voltage pulses generated at the output terminals 125 and 135 have an amplitude (with regard to a reference value of the earth terminal) which takes alternatively a"low"type value VL and a"high"type value Viz where the difference between the amplitude of a high type pulse and the amplitude of an immediately preceding low type pulse is greater or equal to a predetermined minimum value, preferably 50V." "The inventor is a liar." Classic! Ex, is this a language issue or are you having a bad day? I respect anyone able to function using more than one language. Folks in the U.S. don't think a second or third is needed. I think they should be ashamed. If you are just having a bad day I suggest you investigate a little more before making such statements.

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 27 ... 37

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

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

2024-11-27, 02:30:53

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