Hello Shylo,

Hey Shylo, That is EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED HERE MY GUY..!!!

A real guy that do not waste his time with so much crappy kinder math and BS, and get their hands to it,...after you build it and it can drag your car down the road...WTF CARES, if the amps were so or so??...

REAL LAB WORKERS AND CRAFT PEOPLE IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED HERE, NOT MAKING ME , WASTE MY TIME OVER CRAP ARGUMENTS...


SO YOU ARE VERY HERE FRIEND!!

Come in and Join this Party...


Regards


UFO

Hi UFO,

Respectfully,
Carroll

Patrick..........great video! I thought that was what was happening too, but your demo helped to visualize it better.

One thing though, alot of replicators are reporting increased speed and torque, but (correct me if I'm wrong), none of them are reporting a 95% reduction of Input like you are from 2.5 amp to 90 ma.

Why do you think this is so? Is it because you took the steel core off of the motor?

Thanks,
Bobo

Wow this thread is moving Fast.

Is Woppy still awake and reading? I finish my windings and put her to
the test.
Well I thought that Woppy had wired his motor wrong or maybe it was not
alined right, but I have the very same results. It only runs with the power
conected dia. across the motor. No Direct Conection???
So whats going on, anyone figure that out?
I even turned one set of brushes 180 deg. and the same.
I will make a video soon, to show this strange thing.

Mark

Dear friend,

That is the ONLY way it is supposed to run, you are activating Input Coils...now try the other diagonal terminals (opposed to the ones it runs and it should also run...go back to my previous Blue Back (Where TF is the Witch) diagram and connect like that...then measure it..


Regards

Ufopolitics

UFO,
I saw that post and tested it both ways.
Seems to run the same, either way.
I will try to post a video tomorrow.
Thanks,
Mark

************************************************** ******************************


Hello Dear Carroll,




Please, may I ask where did you read, in what part, did I write the word..."Total Output=18 Volts"? Your meter shows 18 volts and it is across the generator output plus the battery voltage in series.
Ok Carroll,
Let me explain why I did that...The Effective Armature Voltage on a Motor, is calculated based on its Voltage-Current transiting its Armature Coils...In Symmetric Motors we must subtract C EMF because Symmetry is constantly reversing the Coils Voltage to achieve rotation, by forced Magnetic Poles switching, this creates a reverse current and voltage flow...Are you picturing this?
Mr Peter Lindemann shows Us an old Navy Electric Book, where a Battery is portrayed as the C EMF and connected opposite to Input, meaning plus to plus and neg to neg...which I agree entirely with...Coils retain their energy in their magnetic fields...just like a non polarized Cap...now every time it charges, then it "blows it back" at our Input...Mine does not do that...instead it sends it via second set of brushes...to output being a positive value and favoring rotation...so we can not subtract, because My "battery" reverses naturally, just like any given inductor...at the time is Pulsed Off...by that time it is already connected and discharging its voltage and current down our outputs...so, we can not subtract that value, but add it...

May I ask you if you had the time to watch my video Asymmetry to Enlightenment?...Go direct to 4:28 I have Symmetry described there as Mr Lindemann's Video shows, then jump to 10:40 and watch my Motors at work...

A Motor Armature Power is given by Ea-Ec=Effective Voltage (not output) Not exactly true. You have to include armature current to calculate true armature power.

Dear Carroll, Current (Amperage) is an Electronic Flow "Population" Value per section of conductor, simplified...nothing more to it...Voltage is the Potential difference between Point A and Point B of a given length of conductor of Electronic Flow...Parameters are reading both electronic flow...one at a cross section and the other at two ends and computing the difference in potentials...They are both about electronic flow...nothing more to it...We have learned to separate this as if they would be comprehending different based Constants...and they are not...They are about same electronic flow measurements, but in different ways, One at a limited minimum timing (One Second, and a "Coulomb" defining Electronic Volume is then understood as "One Ampere" based on that great French Scientist...The other based on Potential Difference between two points as Volts...rendering its name to Alessandro Volta, great Italian Scientist...different times...

Anyways...Amps are Measured in Closed Loops only...and that is a disadvantage to measure my Motors...they are never closed...always flowing freely...where there is not opposed traffic...but at most, a heavy traffic, like a "rush" but all electrons flowing same "one way"...never colliding frontally.

See one thing most are missing or disregarding here, just because dedicating time to calculate Amperage at constant open loops..No one has dedicated a minute to analyze My Magnetic fields...and would never understand my motors if you do not see them...

Effective Voltage is our Rotor Voltage Power, given by Counter EMF, which, since it is a reverse value to our Input...is then subtracted..to our Source Input...are we right til now? Yes effective voltage is input voltage minus CEMF.
Ok, My Motors do not have C EMF...What do we do now?

In Peter Lindemann is very simple deal, He gets in 12.1 V...and C EMF is -9.0V
This if we use very simple math gives Us a Voltage value of 3.1V...are we ok to here? Yes.

Grreat!!


Then we have an Ev (Effective Voltage)...not Total Output, Carroll, of 3.1 Volts as Armature Voltage Power...right? Yes that also is correct.

Grreat!!


Ok, Dear, so then, I will let you "Calculate" My Motor math as Ev amount (not output)...How much, do you think that is? There is no way to calculate the Ev without knowing the current going through the armature and also the armature resistance.


So what do we do??

Resistance could be calculated by each pair of coils at stationary level, and add'em up...but that would be a wrong result, just because, they are never "all" touching-contacting in series...so it is completely "unpredictable" How many times coils are sweeping comm elements at two-one (2-1) ratio per Nano/Milli second of rotation...meaning, there is only two choices...either Coil Pairs are solid contacting comm element...or Two at same time, but then resistance between them two... would have to be calculated as parallel, not serial connection...meaning R1(Coil 1)+R2(Coil 2)/divided 2...


And remember I mean Effective Voltage, not Total Output Then why did you use your measured output and claim it was the EV?

You tell me...

Now COP, derives from Ev/Ea, meaning Effective Voltage divided Input Voltage...In Mr Lindemann's video, it renders a COP of 3.1/12.1=0.256

You are confusing COP with effieciency. They are not always the same thing.

Ok...let me see if I understand what you wrote..."they are not always the same thing..."
Meaning not always...maybe tomorrow...or Friday...but never "always"?

Dear Carroll, COP, (Coefficient of Performance) is the Final Residue or left over Electrical Value inside the Motor Armature, after deducting the C EMF to your Electrical Input, ..Divided its Input...

Motor Efficiency is only measured by the Mechanical Force of the Motor's Shaft, as "P out"/P in and given in Nm, Horse Power or Watts calculations
However works based on same Formula as COP, but where P Out is given by shaft force, not electrical residue at armature...

Whenever you finish doing this math...then we could calculate my COP properly then...

I do not know why we are all arguing over something so simple...if we would be talking about Maxwell's Quaternions Formulas...I would understand, or even High Level Algebra ...but...not in so simple math... Please understand I am not saying your motor is not doing all you claim. In fact I am greatly impressed by the design of it. I have never seen anything quit like it in all my years of working on motors and generators. I am only saying you are not doing the calculations correctly.

Thank You Carroll, no one here will know how to do the "calculations" right...including Me, We were never taught Asymmetrical Systems...
Never seen anything like it?...Did you ever care to look at Nikola Tesla Electrodynamic Machines lay outs, back in 1888 to 1910?

Regards


Ufopolitics

Thanks Bobo,
It could be that or as Dadhav points out, it could also be the combination of magnets I used I'm anxious to get the generator part working. it might have to wait for the weekend...
I have thoughts of building my own stator where the cores are paramagnetic and not connected to each other at the center.
the big thing I like here is the lack of sparks which tells me spiky is being used. So JB sends spikey to a negative resistor, and UFO controls spikey on the fly like a lion tamer

From what i remember the earlier vw generators, the type used for the lockridge device had thinner and longer slots. The type used in the earlier years. Also there was some winding difference. but dont recall if it was the armature or the feild coils. this info was gathered from a vw generator rebuilder from california earlier this year.

Much easier to get a Gm delco generator and cheaper. most parts fit through all the years. there is a long and a short case on those.
these have 14 armature slots and 28 bars.

UFO-- while on the subject of these GM Delco generators. i wonder if it would be appropiate to ask how to wind the 14 slot and 28 bar armature.
These are pretty easy to get to experiment on . I have ruined about 50 of these the last couple of years trying different renditions of the lockridge. The residual magnetisim always seems to be a wolf in sheeps clothing. i can get it to speed up in rpm putting a load on it, close to 900 rpm. When motorising. But when being drive its a different story same as when coasting. thanks for your input.

Hi all,
Let me try to clarify basic approach to "over-unity".
Over-unity is always pure magnetic performance.
So we need to think magnetically!
How?
In my opinion asymmetric approach is big advantage in the dc motors(rotor)- engineering because of avoiding collision between input magnetic field and induced magnetic field -back emf.. but..we need to think about THIS:
Anytime we have: copper-pm magnets topology,we will ALWAYS have magnetic drag because of counter mag. field induced in copper wires when approach pm. magnets...so it mean that we do not have here an clear no back emf performance.
If we want to have better cop and even over-unity than we need to have no back emf performance at all and achieve PURE MAGNETIC COUPLING BETWEEN ROTOR AND STATOR without inducing any add. magnetic field.
So,an topology combination with copper and pm. magnets will NOT provide pure magnetic coupling without induced back emf performance in copper wires!!
Now what to do..?
Or we need to change topology and replace pm. magn. stator- with pure electromagnet-(copper and soft iron ),
or to replace rotor with pure soft iron with no magnetic memory(no steel)!!
Any other combination leads to induce add. magnetic field,dragging and back emf performance between rotor and stator!!!
In pure magnetic topology there is not INCREASING amps draw when is motor shaft on load-just slowing down but INPUT POWER STAY THE SAME!!!!!
The output power will depend only from the magnetic power coupling from the stator electromagnets(how thy are strong) and how close is iron rotor(or asymmetric copper rotor) to the stator!!!
So,in such topology WITHOUT PERMANENT MAGNETS- we will have with this asymmetric rotor mode:
asymmetrically wounded copper rotor and copper stator.
All what we need is properly pulse on/off stator and rotor and have pure magnetic coupling without induced back emf what is the case with pm magnets,or :
we can replace copper rotor with pure soft iron rotor and have also pure magnetic coupling.
Additionally we can always in this topology collect even 90% of collapsing magn. field energy from the stator electromagnets with well known diode plug fashion and ALL POWER FROM THE SHAFT WILL BE FOR FREE WITHOUT AFFECTING INPUT POWER ON LOAD!!
That is my opinion.
waterfall

This diagram doesn't show any efficiency measurement at all. There is no power
output at all, so it's all loss, just measure the input power and that is the loss there.

To determine efficiency you need a measurement of input "power" and a
measurement of "intended" or "wanted" output "power" then divide the output
power by the input power and multiply the result by 100 to get a percentage.
But without a load there is no output so all the input is a loss.

Cheers

__________________
First Imagine it. Then Build it.

Hello Farmhand,

How are you?...fine?

Great...You Farmhand do not change...Man!!

The thing is...

I know exactly what Efficiency is...
What everything is...but
beyond just that...I've got the proof it works...no matter what anyone here says...
Real working models man...did you see my video?

here take a look since you are here...pls do not miss it...I dedicate it to you...serious...I mention you there Farmhand...turn volume up...

20090823173537 - YouTube



but later on I would have another one...see if you could "debunk it"...

And yes, I imagine it first, design it make it work in my head...then build it and it works at first shot...do you?


Keep your "optimistic mind as always"...you will really get far...very...


Many regards


Ufopolitics

I'm afraid I have to agree with Farmhand on this one. I think I am beginning to understand the principles on how this stuff works and why it can be COP>1 (see Gray thread: Gray Tube Replication ).

I think the gain is to be found primarily in the magnetics and not in the electric part of the circuit, although it appears to be possible to introduce some asymmetry over there also. I think one can use (relatively) high voltage pulsed discharging in order to create a strong magnetic field, which is contained and stabilized by the core (an extrapolation form Leedskalnin's experiment), and then use the generator brushes in order to capture the BEMF. Since the power of the magnetic field is determined primarily by the amount of current fed into the coil and a closed-loop iron core can apparently amplify and stabilize such a magnetic field, one might be able to reach a COP>1 on the electric side as well.

So, I see a lot of potential in this design and I am very grateful for Ufo to have published this. We can all make replications for very little money and do our own measurements. So, I see Ufo's disclosure as a gift, which enables me to study and enhance my understanding.

So, may be it's a better idea to start new threads for discussing measurement methods and for discussing the theory (perhaps the theory can be discussed on the Gray thread, since it appears to connect).

That may be much more fruitful.

__________________

Brad,
I replicated your little dollar store slip-ring motor today. I have the Radio Shack motors but I wanted to try your approach first. The RS motor is actually a very hard build for me and I don't know if I will even attempt it. It is not really a kitchen table project. Your little "slip-ring" three pole motor from the dollar store IS doable by almost anyone. My store was out of the fans but I found the same motor in an electric toothbrush. I used the same wire that the motor came with by carefully unwinding it. Thanks for the excellent video on how to make the motor modification. I am discovering many wondorous things with just this newbie starter motor. My "Penny" oscillator runs off the generator part great.

@UFO
This is a facinating thread and you have the attention of many people. Thanks for sharing what you know.

Lidmotor

Hello Lamare, hello Farmhand...

And Hello to all...

Well, I am just going to throw out there for you guys very simple questions...
Then You tell me...

Finally...does any Inductor, coil of magnetic wire...wrapped up on anything except steel..., lets say a piece of plastic...fiberglass..
If I pulse it ...collapse the field right?
Now the question for you BOTH, Lamare and Farmhand...

DOES THE INDUCTOR FINALLY CHANGES ITS MAGNETIC POLARITY WHEN I PULSE IT?

I want straight YES/NO...really do not want to hear any more Physics Explanations...kind of tired of them all...

I just need that answer...if possible...so I could close my "loop"


tonight


Regards

UFO,
You said you were friends or at least speak with Romero. Is this what he did at first when he said he rewound a turnigy motor to attach to his generator? Not stating validity of Romero device since he himself claimed it was a hoax. (Still undecided). Just wondering Bout that turnigy hobby motor.

Can't wait to hear from others, but I have to chime in. The answer is...
YES.
JB's energizers run on this principle, anyone can do this simple double back to back LED experiment to see the reversing field and where it is REGAUGING:
Regauging - YouTube the energizer utilizes the transformers north to suck in the imaginary south and simultaneously push off the magnets north depending on the timing you have setup, it then flips the polarity of the core and rides the scalar south of the wheel.
a better view of the magnetic currents can be seen here:
Magnetic Currents - a method for visualization - REgauging - YouTube
But JB is using this in an entirely different way than you are here UFO. Your way is producing usable power/torque. Can't wait for your next vid you talk about...

So what is JB's way producing if it is not producing power/torque Patrick?


John K.

__________________
"Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that do" - Apple's "Think Different" commercial, 1997.

He doesn't know John, he just want to sound like he does. Bunch of Mumble....LOL

Matt

__________________
Gone Baby Gone!!!

Perhaps you've missed my previous posts on the matter. That statement refers to the SSG. Or what else do you mean by your question
using my name in that manor...

Wow! Matt with the ideas speaks again. How's that 3bgs coming along.

Its coming along good had to make few changes though, that happens in course of development. Wouldn't expect you to understand though, its a different game when all you do is copy people's work, but then again your not capable of that are you?. LOL

Just some mumble from minoly.

Cheers
Matt

__________________
Gone Baby Gone!!!

Hi all

@citfta
I agree with you.
Your exposition is clear, accurate and with exquisite education.

If the tests are wrong in the approach then lead to erroneous conclusions. I fear this may be the explanation.

What are the facts?

DiD --> Data is Data, not explain thories with puzzled answers.

What are the Amps? Can be difficult read Amps then we must design the experiment to talk about work/power. But work/power input versus work/power output.

If we modify one original 700w motor.This does not mean that the modified motor produce the 700w. Can be more or less. Again, we need tests.

Can be self-sustaining?
Which is the response curve with load/work?

Many questions ... LOL

Hopefully become clearer to all the doubts.

__________________
Regards
http://Cacharreo.com.es/foro

We await your own replication of your own device...
oh, wait, who's device was that

Hi Ufo.

As best as I can see, when looking at the 5 pole motor, it seems that one of the 5 poles segments is energized both north and south at the same time, when the brushes are touching 2 segments of the commutator at the same time. The more worn in the brushes are, the longer it will last. Its at the time the pole passes the middle of the magnet.

|o|N|N|S|S|
|N|N|S|S|o|
...... /\.......

Will this effect the way the energy is passed on to the output brushes through the coasting stage.

Thanks netica

Pat, I'm glad you didn't take my comment the wrong way, I'm only trying to help by keeping things real. UFO is lucky to have someone with your ambition interested in his project. Ha, you know better than anyone how testy I can get when I don't to get the answers I'm looking for. I don't know about you but I would be delirious if I could just add to the flight time on my models. You know where to reach me if you want to shoot the breeze about something.
John H.

That's some pretty heavy thinking there dude. There's something I might add to your thoughts. Changing the way the eddy currents travel in your motor could be an all new ball game. Using different materials as you mention in the proper combination could be as important as a new winding. I've experimented with this and have videos to post when I get to it. My first modification changed an Aero motor from a 900 KV to 1050 and reduced the current consumption by 10%
John H.

@ Mathew I don't feel patricks statement was a dig at JB was it? Didn't he have sooo many videos showing his work on the ssg? I don't think saying has no torque is a dig seeing as how its an energizer and not a torque motor. Even john has said that. s far as I have seend hasn't minoly posted more success in the ssg field than anyone I have seen? But I digress, will both of you please refrain from posting whatever Animosity both of you have toward each other to a different place. BOTH of you are replicating someone else's work in THIS thread. So none of these comments are relevant here. Correct?

I see everybody going back and forth on this setup about what can be measured and how it can or can't be measured. We cannot measure the volume of water in the ocean or the wind in the sky. This is true, and who cares. If I can't harness the air in the sky or the water in the ocean to do WORK, what good are they? (for that purpose anyway) The wind can blow and the waves can crash, and that runs no lights in my house nor does it move my car down the road. So who CARES how much "radiant energy" a system puts out if you can't harness it to do work? It is the same thing. And I guarantee you that if you harness something to do WORK, that work CAN be measured. That is what I am doing with my testing...measuring the WORK this system can do compared to the WORK a standard setup can do vs the resources used to DO that work. Any other kind of testing is meaningless as far as I am aware. If the motor spins faster and has more torque for LESS AMPS at the same voltage, I would say we have a winner. The noise it makes, the speed it rotates, the bright lights and pretty sparks...none of it mean anything. Work is work...data is data. I will have the answers that are meaningful to me very soon. Come on guys, lets put together the data that is meaningful.

I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the modified motor. And I can measure the amp draw and voltage going to the small 18 volt motor I am going to connect to the voltage output of the modified motor. If the two outputs total in watts to greater than the input total watts, I feel like that's pretty conclusive. Here is the data from my test on a standard motor connected to a standard motor as a generator, with that generator connected to a light. If anybody has a finished modified motor, connect it shaft to shaft (using the inside piece of a Bic pen and a little super glue) to a standard motor and attach the same bulb I specced out (available at most auto parts stores) and see what the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor is....then compare.

With the motor connected to another motor it showed 12,204 RPM
at .82 amps running on 12.3 volts
The output of the second motor (used as a generator, under the load of the bulb) was 7.2 volts at .7 amps lighting a Sylvania 211-2 Bulb rated at 12.8 volts 12.4 watts
When that bulb was connected as load, the RPMs of the motor decreased to 10,200 at 1.4 amps and 12.3 volts.

So. The basic motor with a second motor attached runs on 10.08 watts
under load (with light connected to generator) it runs on 17.08 watts while producing 5.04 watts.
Can we all agree that this is an accurate method for determining what the motor is producing? Because these are the standards of measurement I will be using when I test the converted motor.

If I can get the same or greater output on the generator at significantly less amp draw on the modified motor than the standard motor, that would be a winner too. There ARE ways to measure what something will DO even if you can't measure the something itself.

I have had some problems with my modified motor. My commutator sections are straight across from each other, show connections to each other, and show no short to other sections or the body of the rotor, but when I put it in the housing and rotate it, I have significant sections of the rotation where there is no contact with the brushes. I rotate one brush housing slowly to see if I can resolve that problem and it doesn't help. If I can't resolve it soon I will give up and build another motor. I'm beginning to wonder if I have gotten something on my commutator that prevents solid contact by the brushes. I will be spending the morning figuring it out as best I can and then building another motor if I have to.

Dave

__________________
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened' General D.Eisenhower
The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking. Albert Einstein
I aim to misbehave. - Malcolm Reynolds

Hi Dave
I have built many of these new motors now and in one, had the same problem. I found that you will burn up the motor if you try to resolve this problem with power hooked up. I put the shaft in a lathe and held the motor from spinning, then ran the lathe on medium speed for an hour or so to set the brushes and correct any commutator faults. It worked.
Dana