Hi Norman
What a very very great article you found here talking about converting
standard motors to overunity devices using a second set of commutators brushes and
harnessing the CEMF.
It is all so easy to understand and makes perfect sense
all the way through. I have been "preaching" some.of these concepts and ideas for over
twenty years...this person taking it to much more understandable levels.
The 2nd set of brush commutator idea really works well and I have done lots of
succesful experiments with them. All I can think to add is he calls for 2nd set of
brushes to be "phased" I would add for the timing to be "delayed" a bit with the 2nd
set of brushes and this is what he calls "phased" I will guess.
I found about
5 degrees retarded, like an echo, as to when to connect 2nd set of brushes to load or
caps gives super good results and the frequency or rpms of motor will decide the exact
connection point....also have 2nd switching share same pulse width length with primary
pulse width...but just delay it a bit, the 2nd switching. I really like the author
saying to input sawtooth DC pulsed in transformers for example, as now the primary
will have the CEMF to harness as well as secondary, because of the cut off of current
up there at the peak.....and to use this in generators too... in my mind do not input
or output "smooth sinewave AC instead chop in and out sawtooth so you can always
harness that CEMF.
Anyways thank you so much for that article very inspiring
for me at least. Would be fun to know author but not on need to know list...
Kone
Something they don't tell is for it to be more effective winding must be
WYE to eliminate self shunting and be OU its easy just cut one end of the wire in the
commutator segments in any dc motor rotor and solder it to a common ring,,,,, you can
do that is small motors also .... voltage capacity will double.
This i had
posted long ago, but people don't read, many just are here to sabotage and distract
and others are just collecting information on devices used to make them into useless
pieces of shit....
the only thing i say to this people is don't ask for me when
they are burning in hell...
(H)
Doug!
A lot of history here
behind this concept. You were there with me at the KeelyNet Conference where I had the
EV Gray Motors disassembled and explained the inner working of same. In the YouTube
video you will see that I pointed out the additional contacts in the commutation slip
rings that captured the CEMF sending the spike energy back to the battery source. The
motors were powered by DC pulse energy.
I started my research on this idea way
back in the early 80s by buying plans from John Bedini for the Tesla Switch using a DC
motor with the 2 gel cell 12V batteries being switched in the configuration explained
by George. I had extended the motor shaft and had 4 sets of slip rings to mechanically
switch between supply and load battery.
DC saw tooth input so you can switch
off input power at the saturation point of the BH curve just at the point where the
coil impedance drops to an air core coil value as Ole has explained. When an inductor
goes into supersaturation the impedance drops. It is at this exact point that you want
to switch from supply to load output so as to capture the spike energy of decaying
magnetic field. The idea of using a locked rotor configuration falls directly in line
with my 5 HP motor set up that gave me the Neutral Spike output. Isolation from supply
power with spike energy going into earth ground. This proposal sends the spike energy
to a load or back to supply battery.
BTW, John Bedini was sitting right in
front of me at the Conference presentation and I asked him to verify some info that I
was discussing. That was a great Conference which gave me the opportunity to meet you
and see your work in this area. This idea of variable impedance creating the pumping
effect falls right inline with the Hyde Patent where that configuration dealt with
variable capacitance giving the same pumping effect.
If you take a hypothetical
capacitor of X-value of capacitance and charge it to say 1000V and instantly drop the
capacitance value to zero (hypothetically) the voltage would go to infinity. Same with
an inductor of a high Henry value loaded with magnetic flux energy and you suddenly
change the Henry value to a much lower value, you have in effect multiplied the energy
(voltage & current) which we see in the ferroresonance phenomenon. It all makes sense
when you think it all out. It has been measured at ferroresonance a transformer
winding will have voltage spikes at 10X the supply voltage and current magnitude
greatly multiplied. Just a matter of capturing that energy and make it do work for us.
Norm
Norm
That is likely what was happening when I daisy chained
10 big dc motors using fwbrs fed 35 volts and ending up with more than 90 volts at the
last motor. Doug's idea regarding the rectifier on the brush leads seems to have
worked even better than expected, when multiplied over several separate motors. The
tread mill motors have a double ended shaft, which makes an extra commutator easy to
install. Is this just a mechanical switch timed after the power on sequence to the
coils, directing the resultant high voltage of the sudden open, where ever you wish?
Perhaps the additional rectifiers supply this same function?
Cheers Warren
Hi Warren
Could be the additional fwbrs in the motor daisy chain
downstream cause a delay effect also the FWBR instead of single diode as is normally
done to capture the CEMF makes for a juttering delay and machine gun release of the
CEMF as opposed to single spike blast. (Maybe)
My theory (one of them) about
the delay of connection causes the timing of CEMF spike to line up and cohere with the
inherent back emf force at its.peak of " opposing force", and the spike is so sudden
and of such high voltage it knocks a chip off of the inherent backemf forces which
releases itself from its natural-job of opposing the forward EMF and now this "chip
off the block" of backEMF goes in same direction as the spike energy and is rectified
as well riding underneath and supporting the spike energy, so there becomes a sudden
large current along with the spike ...that is, if the timing is just right when
recovery circuit connects which is about a 5 degree delay in time I found with my
motors.
Kone
Hi Hermes,
People have been trying this for ages,
and it isn't OU. If it was, we'd have had evidence for at least half a century.
Read
http://revolution-green.com/conservation-of-momentum/ and think about the
principles I've talked about there. It's not impossible to produce an OU system, but
you need to use the correct principles in order to actually achieve it.
Best regards, Simon
Hermes
The
generator is SIMPLE. You just need to make sure the generator coils are in resonance.
IF they are, they are LENZ neutral, and do NOT put additional load on the prime mover
when THEY are put under load. EVERY coil can be put into resonance by changing one of
three things, or combination of the 3 things.
Here is a resonance calculator:
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/
Remember, the
following ONLY works when your motor is up to operating speed, a CONSTANT RPM. Tesla
showed in his patent that he could put motor coils in resonance by winding them with
the "Tesla Coil" style windings INSTEAD OF USING A CAPACITOR, which was what others
were using in his day to accomplish the same task.
Motor coils in resonance
produce NO CEMF (Back EMF) and generator coils in resonance produce no Lenz.
Capacitors back then were HUGE cumbersome things. Therefore it was worth the time to
patent.
But this kind of coil (wound with two wires in parallel and the ends
connected in series) actually put MORE load on the prime move than either a coil with
the same amount of wire with ONE long strand or a coil with the same amount of wire
and two (SHORTER) equal length strands in parallel, so the fact that there was not an
increase in input when the coil was put under load is smoke and mirrors, because it
required more energy to turn the rotor past these coils in the first place.
BUT, if you turn the rotor so that you have the correct frequency (rpm x number of
magnets) or have the correct coil capacitance, Lenz CAN be neutralized. ANY coil can
be put in resonance at the correct frequency. OR you can simply add a capacitor to
your coil to change its capacitance. Look at the variables in the resonance formula I
just gave you. Change the EASIEST one for you and make sure all your generator coils
are exactly the same. Then you just have to wait until the motor is up to the CORRECT
rpm before putting the generator coils under load.
David
Hi Simon,
Do
you find anything wrong with David's reasoning about no lenz law at constant speed
and generator coils in resonance?
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
Use
a bit of logic here. These people are telling you that a certain arrangement will work,
but have you heard from anyone that it actually does and they're getting free energy out?
I'm sure you'd have heard if it worked.... Many people are probably trying various ways
to get past the back-EMF that motors and generators produce, but so far there's no actual
system you can test that actually does that. Yep, stories about people having done that,
but the machine that did it got lost or destroyed, or the dog ate it. There's nothing
testable.
Variations of this basic idea have been tried by many people. It didn't
work. Unless you do something significantly different, such attempts will continue to not
work, because that's the way it is. Thus adding in more capacitors or coils, or getting
the timing right and getting resonance going, won't be a significant change, and still
won't work.
There's maybe a significant change possible if you use a high-enough
frequency that the phase of the waves varies enough across the system. Note that 1GHz is
about 33cm wavelength and that's well above the frequencies that people normally use in
such systems. Then again, with a motor you'd be needing to put the energy into the wave,
and to get energy out that wave would be tapped and thus lose that energy, so I'm still
not seeing a way to get something working here.
Best bet is to build a
reactionless drive (see Mike McCulloch's QI) and make a motor using it. That should work.
Space-test for this gets launched on the 7th November this year.
Best regards,
Simon
Hi Everyone,
I have invented a circuit that uses two inductors as a source of
energy. Norm wrote: "with an inductor of a high Henry value loaded with magnetic flux
energy and you suddenly change the Henry value to a much lower value, you have in effect
multiplied the energy (voltage & current) which we see in the ferroresonance phenomenon."
http://gratisenergi.se/cemf.htm
When the voltage across the 1Henry3 inductor turns, the smaller 0.013Henry
inductor also leads and together they provide energy to the lamp. A visual comparison
with the lamp directly driven from the frequency generator and the lamp in the circuit
shows that the lamp in the circuit shines barely weaker.
Not bad considering
that the 1N 4007 diodes are made for mains frequency and are regular silicon diodes
and not Schottky diodes and that the T-409K transformers do not have a ferrite core,
but are made of transformer sheet for low frequencies and not 500kHz.
Attached is the electronics diagram:
http://gratisenergi.se/cemf.jpg
Best Wishes,
Hermes
Thanks!!! Hermes.
Two ways to achieve this "Multiplication"!
Vary "Inductance"
or "Vary Capacitance"!
The "Non Nuclear" Magnetic Flux Compression EMP generators
demonstrate this phenomenon.
"Totally cancelling" both Inductance and capacitance
in a totally saturated and charged system results in the conversion of
"Electromagnetics" into "Magneto-Electricts"! "EMP"!
See: Super Light, by
John Milewski.
https://www.aetherforce.energy/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/John-Milewski-Superlight.pdf
Norm
Hi Hermes
Looks like you create ferro resonance within the core of the second
transformer via
the sudden change in impedance?
Are the diodes necessary?
Thanks for the ideas
and circuit drawing...
Kone
Hi Kone,
I have not studied ferro resonance and I have not calculated the
impedance of the two inductors at 500 kHz. 64 ohms and 1ohm2 are the DC resistance
of the inductors. Note that a square wave consists of many sine frequencies that
have decreasing amplitude on both sides of 500 kHz.
At 500 kHz, the impedance
of 1Henry3=4,082,000Ω and the impedance of 0.013Henry at 500kHz=40,820Ω
Only
the diode under 4*1N4007 is necessary. The rest are protection diodes that may
fulfill their function. In any case, the 2 diodes connected to the frequency
generator are probably necessary to only load the 1Henry3 inductor with one
half-period. The value of the inductors is not critical but there should be a
difference of 100 times.
I used 2 inductors from 2 T-409K transformers.
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hermes!
"Ferroresonance"!
https://cadickcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TB004a_Ferroresonance.pdf
"Great" review of this phenomenon.
All Engineers want to "Mitigate"!
I want to "sustain" the resonance effect since the "Voltage and current" are
multiplied by 10X.
I was doing a file called "Ferroresonance Capture"!
Norm
Hermes!
Added note: My Lab in Garland, TX (NE Dallas)
was 1/2 mile from Cadick Corp so I was able to visit those Engineers.
Also
"witnessed" the total destruction of a very large "Substation" transformer tripped
into "Ferroresonance "!
Norm
Hi everyone,
I have modified
the CEMF circuit to be able to measure the input and output power. I am not happy with
the waveforms. The input voltage across the two diodes+100 ohm resistor and the 1Henry3
inductor is almost completely like a square wave.
But the output voltage across
the bulb is reminiscent of a sine wave and the current through the 1 ohm and 100 ohm
resistor is spike-shaped and reminiscent of each other from what I could see with my
30Mhz oscilloscope.
The input power is 20 volts peak to peak and 20 milliamperes
peak to peak. The output power is 12 volts peak to peak and 1 ampere peak to peak. It
is impossible to calculate the actual input and output power due to the spikes in the
input and output currents.
Probably the only way to be able to measure the
output power is to rectify the output voltage. Anyway, the two-stage inductor circuit
is proven.
Best Wishes, Hermes
Attaching the picture of the measurement
circuit
http://gratisenergi.se/cemfmeasurement.jpg
Hi Simon,
Please read my updated page at:
http://gratisenergi.se/cemf.htm
Hi Everyone,
I have invented a circuit that uses two inductors as a source of
energy. Norm wrote: "with an inductor of a high Henry value loaded with magnetic flux
energy and you suddenly change the Henry value to a much lower value, you have in effect
multiplied the energy (voltage & current) which we see in the ferroresonance
phenomenon."
Simon, do you agree that the only way to know for sure is to
rectify the spiky output current to direct current?
See the measurement circuit
at the of the page.
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
Where exactly is the asymmetry in this circuit? The frequency isn't high enough to
exploit the small asymmetry from the time the signal takes to travel, and I'm not
seeing anything there that would exploit that time-delay anyway.
Here, you're
using AC, and measuring only the RMS voltage and RMS current, and probably there's
not a true RMS measurement here but instead an approximation based on assuming it's
a true sine wave and not distorted, whereas of course it is distorted. You aren't
measuring the phase difference, or alternatively measuring the voltage and current
at a high-enough rate and multiplying them together to find the actual power at
each point you measure, then sum them (integrate) to get a valid answer.
Thus what you're claiming as the power is clearly inaccurate.
This error of
ignoring the phase for AC, and thus not measuring the real power being delivered,
is such a common mistake for Free Energy research it really needs to be looked for
as standard.
Note also that phase only really applies when you've got a
perfect sine wave at the point you're measuring. If it's not a perfect sine-wave
then phase becomes an approximation and the further you get from a perfect sine wave
the less accurate the approximation. Once the wave shape is obviously spiky the
approximation will be way off.
You can avoid all the difficulties of A
measurement by rectifying, smoothing the result with a large capacitor, and
measuring the DC voltage and current. You could also use a resistor and measure
how fast it heats up a weighed amount of water to determine actual power. The
light-bulb is of course a resistor, though heat-transfer is a bit more difficult
there.
In an inductor, the energy is stored in the magnetic field. If you
suddenly change the inductance, the inductor still only has the same field to draw
on to deliver energy. Note that if you use an inductor with a core (ferrite, Iron,
or some other magnetic material) then once you reach saturation of that core the
inductance drops, maybe dramatically. Generally, the inductance of a cored
inductor isn't a constant, depending on current, and we approximate the inductance
with a number that only actually applies at a particular current. Thus if changing
the inductance value generated real energy, it would be commonly seen, since in
real life the inductance always changes as you charge a cored inductor.
The problem really boils down to "how do I get an asymmetry into the system such
that the conditions for putting energy in and getting energy out are significantly
different?". Given that any coil stores energy into the magnetic field, and also
takes energy from that field when it delivers energy, that symmetry is very hard
to break - you only get out of the field the energy you've just put into it. You
might get it out with a spiky waveform or with some delays that fool your meters
into over-reading the energy, but the energy you get out is limited by what you put
into that field to begin with. Might be confusing because you can put energy in and
get it out either with electrical or mechanical energy, but it remains that you need
to put energy in and that's then the amount you can get out unless you break a
symmetry.
The question of "what is an asymmetry" is less easy to answer. It
ought to be pretty obvious when you see it though.
Best regards, Simon
Hi Hermes,
50%:50% duty cycle waves contain a great number of odd harmonics and
very low levels of even harmonics.
For example if we dial up 1000Hz as the
generator fundamental, it would contain 3KHz, 5KHz, 7KHz etc in varying amplitudes.
The only reason we see the waveform visually as a square wave on our scopes,
is that the scope sums these odd harmonics arithmetically.
If we look at a
square wave on a spectrum analyser, designed to show a frequency vs amplitude display,
we'd see all the true components (barring any DC).
All these harmonic frequencies
react differently in both phase and amplitude to each other when confronted with a
reactive load.
I'm just trying to say, square waves are still made up from a
great number of sine waves. (Dictated by the duty cycle, rise and fall times of the
square wave).
Also when we view a square wave balanced about zero it's
important to remember.
When the waveform is above the zero line our voltage is
positive and so a current passes from generator to our to our load via a diode in
this case.
However when the applied waveform goes negative, the diode blocks
current from passing backwards from load into the generator.
So effectively only
the forward current and voltage is doing any work, perhaps only 50% the input power
waveform.
Gerry
Hermes!
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/416070/what-would-be-the-consequence-of-the-inductor-saturating/454022#454022
Norm
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook
