The Permogator Saga (con't)

[Chester]

Permogator II was pretty much a failure because of the alternator design. But it was a beneficial exercise in bearing and motor construction. The motor actually worked great, spinning that big old disk full of magnets around at over 230 rpm, up to 270.

I took a break and worked on a magnetic motor. No luck with that project, but again a beneficial experience in constructing a model and an idea emerged for an alternator outrigger that I will get into later involving spinning magnets in tubes.

Permogator III is up and running. Sorry, no pics yet because we don't have a digital camera yet. So, when I finish this roll of film and take it to town, I'll post some pics.

Instead, I have drawings.

Permogator III is basically a bigger Permogator I. It uses 8 coil sets and 8 magnet sets for the motor. The alternator uses 18 coil sets and 36 magnet sets mounted on the edge of the rotor, which is a single .236-inch by 8 inches in diameter acrylic disc. The stators are two laminated .236 inch by 10-inch discs and these were purchased from Tap Plastics. This unit doesn't get the torque that it would if the motor were place on the rim, as was the case with Permogator I. Oh well, got to put things where they fit, I guess.

Pockets were drilled in either side of the rotor disc and magnets placed in the pockets where they hold themselves in very tightly. Half inch round by eighth inch disc magnets induce the alternator coils and three quarter inch rounds by eighth inch discs induce and are accelerated by the motor coils.

The coils are identical for the motor and alternator. They are pried out ferrite chokes that I bought from All Electronics for fifty cents each. With the bobbin and magnet wire and the machine winding, I figured it was cheaper than trying to wind my own coils. The bobbin is just shy of 7/8" diameter and the hole is 7/16". The winding is ½" inside and ¾" outside. Nicely made round coils.

The alternator coil sets are oriented so the windings are opposite in hand. This seems to facilitate their mutual induction for flux flow. On the other hand, the motor coil sets are oriented so the windings are in the same direction. The idea here is to have the mutual induction increase the field for a stronger attraction of the magnets. As it turns out, the EMF waveform is advantageous as well. It resembles the wave surfers ride on. The up slope is longer and less inclined, while the down slope is short and drops off quicker. Since the magnet is being attracted back toward the coil on the down slope, this lessens the time it is retarded.

One thing I want to clear up is about the alternator coil sets. The waveform is induced through each coil exactly as shown.  This is verified by the frequency calculated by the rpms against what is shown on the scope. The wave also alternates in polarity each cycle. In fact, if one places a magnet in the end of a free spinning tube, sideways the tube will spin at about half the speed of the cycle due to the polarity switch. This is 9 times faster than the Permogator rotor is spinning. It would be fairly simple to mount some magnets to a flywheel disc rotor, using the spinning tube as a shaft and place some coils to generate some free energy off the main stator.

Holes were drilled in the stator discs for the coils and the coils were placed in the holes and then grouted in with Smooth On plastic. The leads then are soldered together in series.

The bearings hold the ¼ " shaft in alignment and are mounted to the stator, top and bottom, in one-piece aluminum shaft collars. The bearings are stainless steel abec-5 precision bearings and press fit the shaft.  I purchased all of this from McMaster Carr. The rotor is suspended between the two stators and held in place with another one-piece aluminum shaft collar, which is screwed to a fender washer that is screwed to the flat face of the rotor. The fender washer is drilled and tapped for the screws and there is some adjustment in the clearance holes to get everything finely aligned.  I used very tiny stainless steel "1-72 machine screws to hold the rotor in place. Good thing I bought some reading glasses, or I never would have been able to see well enough to do this. All in all this arrangement does a fine job of keeping the alignment perfect and holds the rotor absolutely parallel to the stators allowing for a very close air gap between the magnets and coils. The gap is about 1/32". There is absolutely no vibration, when running, which is a first in Permogator construction.

I am using 4 AA batteries for the primary voltage source through a 555 chip as I have done before. Thanks to GeoM (finsawyer) I learned how to place a one-ohm resistor in the circuit to measure the amps. The motor circuit operates at 530 milliamps. The batteries powering the motor are delivering 4.9 volts to the circuit. The power being supplied by the batteries then, is 2.61 watts. These measures are taken before spinning up the rotor. I don't think this battery drain ever stops, even with the rotor spinning and the coils are delivering their EMF into the circuit. The moving magnets induction of current into the circuit adds to the power of the motor, of course, but doesn't ever stop the batteries from discharging.  I have gone into how the motor operates elsewhere and won't repeat it here.

The Ohms measured in the alternator circuit are 5.2.

With freshly charged batteries the device ramped up to 234.5 rpm after a light twisting of the shaft to get it going. A bridge rectifier was installed on the alternator output and a measurement of 6.55 rectified volts was obtained. With the Ohms as measured, that is 1.26 Amps and 8.25 watts with the circuit open. At this speed the potential is 315% in power output over the battery power input. The volts per rpm are .028, the amps per rpm are .005, and the watts per rpm are .035.

I am now charging batteries with the output. I have two sets of 4 NIMH batteries. I'll see how long I can run it, by charging one set while discharging the other. No special charging circuit, just plugging the batteries to be charged into the leads off the bridge rectifier.

I made a bunch of steel wire coils to juice the system, but sadly that was a wasted effort. The steel wire coils bring the device to a halt.

That's all for now. More later.

Chester

[devoncloud]

"I am now charging batteries with the output. I have two sets of 4 NIMH batteries. I'll see how long I can run it, by charging one set while discharging the other. No special charging circuit, just plugging the batteries to be charged into the leads off the bridge rectifier."

OK, now you are cookin!  Let us see if you can keep up the process creating power, charging batteries, and continue to only use batteries charged by your unit without any outside power sourses (excluding the original battery at the beginning of your test of course)

Why do you not simply hook up your output back into your input and take the batteries offline? This should be possible given a 300 % efficiency rate, should it not?

Devon

[Chester]

The battery charging already doesn't look like it's going to be very efficient. I'm getting some charge on them, but not as fast as the drain is occuring. I don't think this is unusual, however, and is more or less expected. Next I'll look into the pulse charging circuit to see if I can get some improvement.

Here's the thing about running the rectified voltage back into the motor. I've tried it, of course, and it really messes up the resonance. It fights the nice wavy pulsed current that makes it work to begin with and you get a chaotic jumble I can't even describe. It's erratic and makes great big splotches on the scope.  So, maybe, if I can get the output voltage transformed into a nice clean DC line into the 555 chip, then it might work. That's what charging the batteries is about. I just don't know how to do make such a transformation with circuit devices, or if it's even possible. It would sure be helpful if someone would show me how to do it.

All I'm claiming here is that the readings are as accurate as I can read them and that the device exists and works as the readings indicate. No more than that.

[RobC]

How about a large capacitor across the DC output to take out the ripple? 10,000 to 50,000 uf should smooth things out. RobC

[Electric Ed]

"With the Ohms as measured, that is 1.26 Amps and 8.25 watts with the circuit open. At this speed the potential is 315% in power output over the battery power input."

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Chester, but you don't calculate power output using "open circuit" values of voltage and current.

Power output is calculated using voltage and current in the LOAD device.

Electric Ed

[Chester]

Thanks. I tried some smaller caps and get a sawtooth, but that's smoothed out a lot from the rectified wave. Unfortunately, I don't have any caps in the range you suggest, so I'm going to get some and give it a whirl to see what happens.

[Chester]

This is all pretty confusing to me.

The rectifier itself is a load. I measure across its legs and find the resistance to be 1.2 million ohms. At 6.55 volts, this is almost no watts and less amps. The efficiency is to the battery input on the motor is about nothing.

I plug in a 324 ohm resister beyond the rectifier. Volts read 1.5 across its legs. This returns way more amps and watts than at the rectifier, but still woefully small numbers. On the order of .27% efficiency to the motor batteries here. So, either I've gained some power in the intervening wire, between the rectifier and the resistor or this type of alternator is so inefficient as to be laughable. This despite my observations that others have calculated their alternator power the same way I have, and no one stepped up and said they were full of $#|+.

I'd really like to think I have some power output, but what do I know?

[Junkie]

Just take a known resistance (say 10R) connect it across the output and measure voltage.  Power will be V^2 / R. Thats the power flowing through the resistor anyway.

[JW]

I have just glossed over this. So forgive me if I missed some of the details of the circuit.

 It seems to me as you load your output/ theres going to be corisponding deceleration to your spinning body. So things probably will look pretty decent at open circuit(or close to it[no load]) then when you attempt to load it everything will change.

 Im just guessing this is why monopole drives are used in some of these motor designs. I think the monopole allows for a slight window of loading. As well as a way to capture some back voltage if the conditions allow.

 While pondering all this, I had an idea. In my mind bigger is better. such as a 20in dia rotor with the strong neo type magnets, say 1x1x2 spaced radialy around the circumfrence at 1/2in spacing. Id like to drive such a rotor with a monopole. Then mount a tranformer stratigicly so that it would interact with the rotors magnets, perhaps at an angle or at distince, such that cloging could not be felt in the rotor, yet the adjasent transformer would induce some(probably very little) power from the local rotating mag fields. I have no idea how I would wire the transformer into the circuit. But it would be fun to play around with something like this. or the plasticity of the magnetic fields.

JW

[Chester]

The wife brought home a packet of capacitors from Radio Shack. I put a 3300 uf across the circuit after the rectifier. Wonder of Wonders! This flattened the voltage out extremely well!

As for actual power.

I decided to measure it just like I did on the motor. I hooked to a load of 2050 ohms, which produced 6 very nice flat DC volts. Then I stuck a one ohm resistor (actually measures .9) in series to the load. This is exactly how I arrived at the amps in the motor. Scope and meter measured a little over 2.2 millivolts!  Both of the calculations produced the same result. 2.24 millivolts across the one ohm resitor and 6 volts across the 2050 return an average of 2.8 milliamps. So this alternator is actually powering out at .67% of the battery output.

I can hardly believe it. This is probably the most inefficient alternator design anyone could come up with.

Time to re think what I am aiming for.

[Chester]

New Target.

Well, after suffering a major bout of depression and my wife gleefully proclaiming we could clean up the mess? I had some additional thoughts.

I reran the experiment with the big cap in place. This thing works wonders. Why does anyone go to three phase instead of using a big cap? I can get the exact flat voltage I want by moving the potentiometer back and forth. Okay, let's settle on six volts and take the readings. That's more than enough to power a 555 chip.

Six volts is achieved when the motor turns at 168 rpm. This works out to .0357 volts per rpm. The capacitor has added efficiency to the system.

Ohms read 1747 on the pmeter. Don't ask me to explain why it is different than the last time. I'm looking at the big picture, here, now and not concerned with details.

What is the variable that needs changing to boost volts, amps and watts? Why, it's RPM!!

All I need to do is boost the rpms up to about 2100 at this load to produce more watts than the battery produces! Of course I can't use any more power than the battery is now producing to do this, but that's a detail. 2100 rpm should produce about 75 volts. Other parameters being equal will get me to 3.2 watts.

That, then is the new target.

My thinking is, it may just be possible to do this, if I can successfully build a passive magnetic bearing. I read where a couple of guys at Berkeley have done it. I have a design, but don't know if it will work or not. Shouldn't take long, since I have all the parts and don't break my last #1-72 tap.

[TomW]

Chester;

Capacitors do fine in parallel and the microfarad value adds as you pile more on. So you can use, say 2) 3300 microfard caps in parallel will yield 6600 microfarads. You can pretty much mix and match capacitive values as long as the working voltage ratings  all exceed the peak voltage rating on your source feeding them.

Just in case you were unaware of this.

T

[Chester]

The things I don't know are only exceeded by the things I don't know that I don't know.

Well, I am amazed by what the cap does to the circuit. Thanks again Rob.

There were two 3300uf caps in the packet my wife brought home and I put one in. It seems to do fine, is the size of an M-80 and the other one is even more huge, so I'd have to have another breadboard to hold it. heh.

What is amazing is I now read an output of 9 volts, open circuit after the rectifier and the trace is flat as can be. Before, I read a max of 6.55 volts, RMS. Well, the AC before the rectifier is still reading 10 peak volts.

Just by putting the cap in, I get more output volts. Amazing.

Thanks for your input. I had kinda discovered that, but all my caps were in the .01 mf range. I do have a few 1 farad caps, but they are rated at 2.5 volts. I plugged one in, and guess what? It held a nice flat trace at 2.5 volts. I thought something must be wrong, till I put on the reading glasses and looked at the fine print. heh

Chester

[devoncloud]

Your machine is not running on it's own power, and you cannot get it to.  when the machine is not hooked up to any load (an open circuit), your machine spins out of control giving you the impression that you have created an overunity machine, however when you put it on a load, you find out very quickly that you cannot produce more power than you put in.  this is how you are suppose to be taking your readings in the first place... with your machine under a load. and no, the resister is not a load.  Hook up a charging system or motor to your output. You will see you are not even close to overunity.  

the same thing happens on a wind genny.  if you do not hook it up to a battery charger, the machine will spin out of control, creating much more energy than it should until you fry the thing.  The minute you put it online, it comes back to real producable numbers that are within the specs that they should be.

so, once again, my criticizm comes from getting tired of you ou'ers making claims otherwise.  My criticism comes from you ou'ers simply making a machine that is similar in every way to something that has already been tried before hoping that you will somehow hit the jackpot and have a overunity devise on your hands even though history has proven your design will not work. Christ, if you did all the sudden achieve overunity, you would not even be able to tell us how you achieved your goal!  You could not tell us why you succeeded where others failed!  this is why I criticize you, roamer!

1.  Come up with what it is about what we already know about energy you wish to challenge and why you think what is currently thought is wrong!
   
2.  outline how it will be possible to prove that this theory you are challenging is wrong!
   
3.  figure out how to build a machine using the answer to #2 as a guide on making your machine (a devise that will be able to prove your hypothesis).
   
   

outline what it is that you are doing with your machine that is different than those out there that have tried in the past.. in other words, why will your devise succeed while others failed?

4.  When you find that your hypothesis was wrong, figure out WHY it was wrong, so the next machine you can try to overcome your mistakes instead of building the same machine over again trying to only improve on the friction of your bearing.  

The problem is not in the bearing my friend... it is in the laws of energy.  sorry if you do not like to hear what I am saying here, but just take a look at the people who's footsteps you are following here... Bedini???  The man refuses to have his designs tested by pros!  James Randi offered the guy one million to prove he had achieved overunity...... he refused to take him up on the offer.  What does that tell you?

Devon

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS YOUR FRIEND!!!!!!!!!

Devon

[Chester]

You are really too much.

Your idea of overunity is to drive a car from San Francisco to Denver and have more gas in the tank than you had before, WITHOUT FILLING UP DURING THE TRIP.

That's a strawman. Nobody is claiming that can be done.

My goal was to create a machine that could measure effiency. That I've done.

The numbers are real and that's that.

Where do you get off claiming I'm claiming something I'm not claiming!!@!!!?

So your critisism is misplaced and really inappropriate.

You claim wind machines create energy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I mentioned to you before, the universe is teeming with energy. This despite big bangers to the contrary. Did you not understand what a kilogram of material moving at 700 km per second means? Did you not understand it was about extacting energy?

Apparently not. Again, it is about extracting energy, not creating it.

So. I said my aim was to see if I could extact some energy from permenant magnets. I've succeeded in doing in my estimation. I have a motor that extracts power by virtue of inducting current from passing magnets. More power that is input by the primary battery source. This results in an alternator that produces more energy, although it be internal, than the batteries. True, the effiency in getting that energy out of the system is inefficent. So what? That is in the nature of the experiment.  

Right now, I'm tired of responding to this irrelavent hagaunge of yours. It's your strawman, and it's pretty obvious that you have never taken a limited power source to see what you could make of it. Rather you seem to want to critisize anyone who attempts to do so.

Well, I've learned a lot in the process of doing it. I don't expect much of that to rub off on anyone else.

Chester

[devoncloud]

Chester, I do not criticize you for trying... actually.  I urge you to continue... you are getting mad because I do not value your methods, which is:

1. Make a machine that has already been created in hopes that you will somehow "stumble" onto the holy grail of machines instead of actually trying to do something new....
   
2.  The method in which you take your measurements is scientifically flawed, it is not my "idea of overunity meaning is to drive a car from San Francisco to Denver and have more tank in the gas than when you started".  Any alternator, when not hooked up to a load, will give you eroniously high readings.... in order to attain an actual true reading of an alternator's capabilities, you MUST have it on a load.  This is how you can tell how efficient your system is, not taking readings from an alternator that is running with no outlet for the energy to flow.  Do not take my word for this, look to some of the big wigs... Ed, from Windstuff now is my guess that would be the best source considering he has built the most efficient alternators I have seen on this site and his knowledge level is HUGE>
   
3. The analogy you used about the car trip, by the way, IS EXACTLY WHAT OVERUNITY CLAIMS TO BE ABLE TO DO!  Overunity means, by definition, that your devise will be able to output more energy than what it brings in, hence the prefix "over".  If this is not what you are claiming your machine is, (overunity) then just say it.  But, from your very last description, you are claiming to have an overunity devise.  You are claiming to produce more output than the batteries afford you, your only energy source (since magnets are not suppose to count).  So, I forget how much you say your batteries are inputing... let's say 10x amount of electricity input... hook up a load that makes your machine output 11x amount of electricity output, make sure your batteries are still just inputting 10x amount of energy(to make sure the machine did not try to drag more input in if it can to compensate the extra load), and see if your machine can sustain the load the same time as it did without it.  
   
   

Chester, if you read this post and feel that I am being nasty, read it again.... I am not putting you down, I am not raining on your parade, I am simply pointing out the flaws in your ways of doing things scientifically so that you can fix them and get a true idea of what your machine's capabilities are.  If I upset you or insult you in by doing so, I very sincerely appologize.  I do have a tendency to get worked up about Science, especially when it is not good Science.

Devon

[Chester]

Here is a challenge for you and your windmill. Hook up a power source not exceeding of 2.61 watts to your windmill then give it a spin and let it run on its own for one or more hours. Then measure how many watts you get across a load on the output. Then get back to me and let me know how it compares with the Permogator.

At that point you will have an idea of what you need to do to reach a goal of more efficiency in your mill. But until you do that, you are firing on rhetoric.

That's where I'm at. I at least know what I have approximately and that will guide the direction I take from here.

In the car analogy, if you ended up in Denver with 3/4 tank of gas and six fully charged batteries that were discharged when you left, you would still be insisting on overflowing tank of gas. Even though a gas tank only holds so much.

But, I'm not going to debate this issue much. Energy exists in a lot of forms. But you get worked up about science right. So, you must know what energy is and how it came to exist and will gladly tell us all, right?

Here is a test for you on good science that you apparently value highly. It is generally claimed that near absolute zero Kelvin degrees can exist on the surface of our planet. Thus it is claimed that a Boze Einstein Condensate has been created by lowering the motion of atoms in a gas to within a billionth of a degree of absolute zero. That is the lowest temperature that can possibly be obtained, apparently anywhere in the Universe. A degree is about 274 Joules of energy. So you must believe this temperature scale is valid, even given the fact this low temperature gas derived condensate is moving in orbit with the rest of the planet at 31 km/sec?

If so, explain where the energy of absolute motion is lost in the gas. It doesn't have to be a particularly good explanation. Just do it so I can understand why I should have faith in a Kelvin temperature scale.

As far as putting my propeller in the aetheral wind. I'm still working on it, and will report progress as it occurs. At least I know my next target. The mag bearing actually levitated the rotor vertically, but couldn't deal with side forces to eliminate the wobble and side rub to produce less drag than the ball bearings. I ran out of magnets, which might have fixed that, so, it may not be the end of story, except for now.

Wife said just put the damned thing on the drill press and get all the revs you need and that will be that.

Bottom line is, I don't know why you think this research is fruitless. There just may be an aether, and if there is, there is a wind that can be used. I don't think there has been that much research and there are darned efficient machines already out there utilizing aetheral wind, even though "good science" claims it doesn't exist, while absolute zero does.  

[Chester]

A couple of other points.

Devon claims >>The analogy you used about the car trip, by the way, IS EXACTLY WHAT OVERUNITY CLAIMS TO BE ABLE TO DO!>>

No they don't. This is your strawman, that you claim they claim, as exemplified by this statement. You are still making a false statement. Overunity is not an entity that makes claims, furthermore.

Devon claims >>The method in which you take your measurements is scientifically flawed<<

I use state of the art multi meters and oscilloscopes. So, you must think the scientific instrument business is therefore flawed, right?

Devon claims >>in order to attain an actual true reading of an alternator's capabilities, you MUST have it on a load.<<

Yes, that is where I came up with the efficiency of .67%. Are you challenging that reading by inferring the instruments were in error?

Devon claims >>magnets are not supposed to count<<

Oh. So you are claiming this whole experiment is invalid, because that was what is was I was supposed to measure. Good for you. But you aren't putting me down, right? All I can say, is were you born and asshole, or did you acquire that in early childhood? And do you think you will still have that ability when you grow up? Where did you get this information that magnets don't contain energy. Every magnet supplier I have looked at gives a Joules per volume rating on magnets they sell. So, are you making this up? They don't count?

Devon claims >>But, from your very last description, you are claiming to have an overunity devise.<<

I claim the internal power measurements of the alternator circuit with no load exceed the internal measurements of the power circuit. Where do you get an overunity claim from this? Are you in Junior High School? I thought I was clear, but I do expect liars to exist and you qualify as one. It must be easy to do, since I did it. How does your machine rate?

[devoncloud]

Chester, I do not think research in the field of overunity is fruitless... quite the contrary.  That is what i have been trying to explain to you these past few replies, however I must not be doing a very good job of it... sorry for that.  I am all for this research... and most other research of just about any topic unless it is for hurtful purposes.  If people wish to search for overunity devises I think that is fine.... it just seems that most people out there that are searching for it are going about it in a most horribly ineficcent way.  It is like the OU "researchers" bought into the claims of the people out there that claim to have achieved a perpetual motion devise... except they never did achieve that devise, otherwise they (or their heirs) would be the topic of our conversations at the dinner table as someone that we envy due to the riches they posess.  We would be driving fuelless vehicles and not paying for electricity too.

Despite this obvious lack of achievement of these past devises, the OU devises that you see being tried today are the same devises that were tried before... they are either remakes of the Bedini devise, or the Newton devise, or the Fisher Engine.... it reminds me of politics in a way.  A political idea is tried and some money gets thrown in to make the idea a reality, exept the idea is flawed and it does not work.  So the politicians throw more money into the idea hoping that the extra funds will somehow magically fix the flaw, however of course it does not.  this is my problem with most OU devises, not that the searches for overunity are "fruitless".... Laws are made for one purpose, and that is so they may be broken.  I hope you succeed Chester, I would be the first person to offer you a humble congratulations if you succeeded.

As far as your "test" of my "good science" that I value, I would have to look into your question a bit more given I do not really know much about BEC enough to guess as to why this would occur.  I just know the basics, and can only hypohtesize a bit as to why this would occur (without researching the question further).  At BEC gas atoms take on some rather strange charachteristics, such as they loose their shape (they get larger and sort of fuzzy), stack on top of each other, and loose all charachteristics of individual atoms.  This makes them completely not measurable as individual atoms anymore.  this is also commonly referred to as a "super atom" since their use to be thousands of atoms, and when BEC is achieved their appears to be only one large atom. This means the atoms colide as well... something that is not possible at any other temperature in normal conditions.  This also goes against the way molecules act in general (hense "objects"...molecules come together to create a chair, a computer, a car, me and you, etc... by molecules not comming together as they do while in the Boze Einstein Condensate state).

So, given that atoms in the state of BEC act so incredibly different than atoms in any higher temperature, me guessing as to why they would loose the energy of absolute motion is as good as yours at this point.  I can take a guess that since the atoms no longer hold on to a "Bond" that seperates them from the other atoms of gas means that they simply hold no energy in them at all anymore, but like I said, that is just a guess.  Great question though... perhaps I will do some research on it....

Devon

[jacquesm]

Hi Devoncloud / Chester,

About the BEC:

First of all it's 'Bose', not Boze.

At absolute zero vibration energy inside an atom is zero, and it's speed is too,

relative to ITS CONTAINER. As you probably know there is no absolute reference, the only measurements you can make are relative to yourself, the observer.

Being hit by a snowball leaves the point of impact increased in temperature, on both the snowball AND the target, no matter what the termperature of the snowball or the target. If you were trying to measure the temperature of your BEC from some other frame of reference you would come away with a different idea about it's temperature than a stationary observer would, absolutely no conflict there.

It's the old question about the fly flying inside the train, how fast does it really go ? That depends on where YOU are standing wrt to the moving fly.

[devoncloud]

First of all, I did not state (or have I ever in the past) that magnets do not have  a "rated joule per volume rating".  What I said was(at least tried to say), when measuring output of an alternator compared to input, that you do not take the "rated joule per volume rating" of magnets and the energy input from the outside source (in your case batteries)in order to come up with your energy input into your alternator..... you only use the input from your outside energy source (your batteries).  If your machine is able to output (while on a load)more electricity than your batteries are putting into the machine, then yes, you have an ou devise.  Magnets are only able to create energy when they are moving due to an outside force of energy so that alternating poles pass over a wire.

If you really want to get down to the basics of your driving to Denver Analogy, yes, that is what OU devises claim, except the part about the gas tank being fuller as no ou devises create gas as their power output..... But if a battery were the input source, and the motor of the car were an ou devise, then the car could drive to Denver while taking the "over" in unity, add it back to the battery, and yes, when arriving at Denver, having a higher charged battery than when they left.  This is a basic deffinition of an OU devise.  It is not my definition, it is the basic understood definition by the world.

now, as far as the "A" hole comment and your claims to not be making an overunity devise... here is a couple of quotes from your diary:

"The batteries powering the motor are delivering 4.9 volts to the circuit. The power being supplied by the batteries then, is 2.61 watts. These measures are taken before spinning up the rotor. I don't think this battery drain ever stops, even with the rotor spinning and the coils are delivering their EMF into the circuit."

"With freshly charged batteries the device ramped up to 234.5 rpm after a light twisting of the shaft to get it going. A bridge rectifier was installed on the alternator output and a measurement of 6.55 rectified volts was obtained. With the Ohms as measured, that is 1.26 Amps and 8.25 watts with the circuit open. At this speed the potential is 315% in power output over the battery power input. The volts per rpm are .028, the amps per rpm are .005, and the watts per rpm are .035."

Pay close attention to your own words, as they CLEARLY STATE that you are producing more output (with an open circuit) than your batteries input.  THIS IS A CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE AN OU DEVISE!~!~!~ EVEN IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO COME OUT AND SAY "OVERUNITY" WHEN DESCRIBING YOUR DEVISE, THESE ARE WHAT YOUR READINGS CLAIM!!!!!!!!

So, before calling me names, read your own f$#@!ing diary and make sure you are not making claims contrary to what you are pissed off at me for.

One more quote for good measure:

"With the Ohms as measured, that is 1.26 Amps and 8.25 watts with the circuit open. At this speed the potential is 315% in power output over the battery power input."

Ok, am I still an "a" hole? or have I just proven that you sir, are making the eronious claims that I said you were?  So now, after posts of people on this website who have shown you the errors in your calculations, your devise has gone from 315% efficiency to 67%... it is nice to see that you have come back from Uranus, and I am not talking about the planet.

Oh, by the way, since you have pulled your head out of your crack, none of my posts ever said anything about you still claiming to be in control of an OU devise... they were suggestions on how you could go about with your studies in a smarter, more scientific way so that you could try to seperate yourself from the Bedini's and the Newton's out there that wish to lie about what they have accomplished.

Oh, and yes, I am being an "A" hole now.  Since I tried to apologize for offending you and you get nasty in turn, I do not mind.  And yes, I learned at a very young age how to do so, I have taken great pride in honing those skills up in the years, and am close to reaching "master" levels of knowledge in the sphincter arts.  I will keep you personally posted on progress.

Oh, and my machine gets horrible efficiency ratings... The difference between you and I is that I know mine sucks, and am unafraid to admit it instead of blowing smoke up everyone's "black hole" about me being able to do 315% efficiency.

Devon

[jacquesm]

> it is nice to see that you have come back from Uranus, and I am not talking about the planet.

For what it's worth, English is my second language and I figure I have a decent command of it but every now and then I come across a sentence that has me completely stumped - for a while - and this one takes the record. You really had me wondering there for a moment and it took the rest of the posting to bring it into context for me.

Thank you ! It's not everyday that I sit laughing in front of my trusty laptop

[devoncloud]

no problem Jac.... glad I could be at your service

Devon

[finnsawyer]

Chester, if you ever go back and check this I'd like to point out that the diode is a non-linear device.  It exhibits a very high resistance in the reverse direction and a rather low resistance in the forward direction.  Not only that, the resistance defined as Vd/Id, varies with Id or Vd.  You measured a value of reverse resistance.  Your ohmmeter contains a voltage source and a resistor in series so you put a voltage across the diode.  Try reversing the leads.  Here's an experiment.  Get a filament transformer (6.3 volts or 12.6 volts).  Put your diode in series with a resistor on the secondary (low voltage) side.  Plug the transformer into a wall outlet.  Connect your scope inputs up to the diode and resistor with the ground lead between them but have the inputs in the X-Y mode.  Sit back and enjoy the show.  Hint: start with a large value of resistance.  You don't want to blow the diode.  Then decrease the value of resistance.