Matt
Thanks for the links and it will take a while to cover all the material... brilliant stuff.

Charge Clusters make sense in my opinion. As I am sure Russ has already noticed that the energy diverges within these circuits and starts coming out of the front and the back end of the circuit simultaneously. Hell I have smoked mosfets sitting on the bench not even connected to anything and it only gets worse if you try to put them in the circuit, lol.

Matt,

It's nice to have a soapbox to be able to express your ideas or preach and it's nice that others can do the same.  I very rarely comment on the big theories but I did this time.

As far as Mr. Steinmetz goes, from what I can see he is the real thing.  And what that really means is that he is basically in my camp.  The language he uses is late 19th century and early 20th century technical English, which is quite a bit different than today's technical English but he is still speaking the same language.  I am quite confident that what he writes about transient phenomena is all the real thing.  After all, this guy developed a system of using complex exponentials to model circuit responses which is a huge deal and is still taught and still used to this day.  My sense is that this contribution is way way more important than whatever he wrote about the transient behaviour of circuits.

Onepower,

Yes, a spark gap is essentially just a resistor.  Your Google search point is not very scientific, is it?  You can search on just about anything and get hundreds of thousands or millions of results.  You might think that I'm a buzzard but assuming that Russ finishes this project and if the results are not to your liking then all that I ask is you acknowledge the results and don't fly the coop.

SS

I read the 30-page summary of the Newman motor and even made a file about it.  There are numerous claims of both mechanical and electrical over unity.  The argument is basically what I knew already, the allegation that high voltage coupled with a big copper coil will give you both a mechanical over unity output and an electrical over unity output because the copper atoms are converted into energy using the E=Mc^2 formula with almost 100% efficiency.

But beyond the claims there is no real substance.  There is a claim that even a motor weighing only 10 pounds demonstrated the effect.

As far as the electrical output from the device goes, we are left with a puzzle or some would say a warning flag.  There is no description of the "electrical output" at all, but it is referenced all over the place.  I think that I saw someone post that there are no specifics about the electrical output in the full Newman book either.  How is it possible that with 30 years of research by Joe Newman that there is no description of how the motor outputs electrical power?  And what is also concerning is that the device is so simple, just pulsing a coil, and pulsing a coil doesn't really have a true electrical output.

However, when you pulse a coil you can recover what is stored in the magnetic field as an electrical output.  And the claim is made that the copper atoms are converted directly into electrical energy in the coil itself.  So does that imply that you get excess energy in the back-EMF pulse?  If that's the case why is he burning off presumably a lot of that energy with the open cycle, and then burning off even more of it with the shorting cycle?  If it truly is in the back-EMF pulse, then how come the method to get the energy is apparently not described and there are no circuits to do it when nearly every time it is tested there is a claim made of over unity electrical output?

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 20th, 2018, 07:09 PM

As far as Mr. Steinmetz goes, from what I can see he is the real thing.  And what that really means is that he is basically in my camp.  The language he uses is late 19th century and early 20th century technical English, which is quite a bit different than today's technical English but he is still speaking the same language.  I am quite confident that what he writes about transient phenomena is all the real thing.  After all, this guy developed a system of using complex exponentials to model circuit responses which is a huge deal and is still taught and still used to this day.  My sense is that this contribution is way way more important than whatever he wrote about the transient behaviour of circuits.

Yes, I too think ol' C.P. Steinmetz was the real deal.  For as sharp as this guy was though, I think he missed something.  He did a marvelous job of defining the magnetic and dielectric fields within an electric(al) field, showing how the two work at right angles to each other.  This is our curl (current) and divergence (voltage) of spin, bravo.  If Mr. Steinmetz would have only considered one more aspect, the gradient (tempic) of spin, he would have nailed it.  Maybe that's my job now, to bring this third missing field into the light so we can build devices that do just a little bit more than the old rules say are possible.  W.B. Smith said it, I can say it again, until it sticks.

Russ,

In taking a peek at your live stream I think you are doing an Arduino based controller for a software-driven commutator.  You were printing out an optical shaft encoder and making your own opto-isolators for driving the relays.  You have an array of relays that will be used to do the switching all controlled by the Arduino getting shaft-encoder pulses.  So you can play with the timings and pulse widths and duty cycles and stuff like that all with that LCD screen and a few potentiometers.  At least I think that's the gist of it.

So you will have a software-controlled electronic commutator.  There will be no more friction on the rotor and presumably the relays are going to switch well and you have any sparking or arcing issues under control.

So the big question is this:  You get it all working and play with the software controlled dwell angle and duty cycles and pulse widths and then what?  Obviously the rotor will spin faster and that's great but once you have played with all of the parameters and have seen the rotor go at different speeds, then what?

Do you think over unity is going to jump out at you when you tune it properly?  What if that doesn't happen?  Well, I think that you have to start seriously thinking about really testing it leveraging your DSO and the people in the thread to test the device.

SS

Let's keep it simple and only discuss mechanical over unity for starters.

Think about this:  For the rotor shaft output to be that much stronger and manifesting mechanical over unity then obviously there must be a much stronger magnetic field pushing on the rotor.  Well, there is only one source for the magnetic field, and that's the big coil.  Somehow the big coil with the alleged help of E=Mc^2 is generating a whole hell of a lot more magnetic flux than it is supposed to be doing.  It has to be the case, there is no other way to get mechanical over unity.  It's like you measure 2 mA of current flowing through the coil but in fact the amount of magnetic flux being produced by the coil equivalent to 20 mA of current flowing through the coil.  It has to be, right?

So, I am going to assume that you have some fancy Hall-based magnetic field sensor or you can build your own sensor because you have the Hall devices,  That means you can put 2 mA of DC current through the coil without the motor running and measure the flux around the big coil, and then run the motor with the fancy commutator switching where the average current draw is 2 mA and then with your Hall sensor probe sniff around for the much stronger magnetic field that HAS to be there if this is an over unity device.

Likewise, I told you about putting a separate sensor coil around the big coil so that you could measure the rate of change of flux or integrate on that signal and measure the amount of flux.  One more time, if the device is an over unity device then it MUST be generating a stronger magnetic field than it is "supposed" to and that signature of over unity should be detectable by the sensor coil by doing some kind of base reference measurement and then comparing it to the measurements you get when the motor is in operation and the "secret sauce" is supposed to be generating a stronger magnetic field and more magnetic flux per unit area than it is "supposed" to.

And I looked up your beautiful $6000 DSO.  It can do box-car oversampling and like magic turn 8-bit sampling into the equivalent of 10-bit or 11-bit sampling.  It can probably do that on multiple channels and you probably have a ton of memory in it and since the motor runs at such a low low low frequency you should be able to do some deadly accurate measurements of all sorts with that DSO.   If you don't know how to measure how much energy there is in a single pulse that you drive the big coil with then now is the time to start playing with stuff like that.

SS

SS

Quote

Yes, a spark gap is essentially just a resistor.

So a simple resistor can produce an emission spectra as shown below and can produce a non-linear discharge as shown below?. Can a resistor produce high intensity UV and in some cases X rays?. It's kind of like saying a 20 billion dollar particle accelerator is just a donut in my opinion.

Here is another kind of way-out idea that popped into my mind.  The motor is a complex enough magnetic environment to deal with.  There are two sources of changing magnetic field, the moving rotor magnet and the big coil.  Wouldn't it be nice to be able to only measure the magnetic field produced by the big coil even with the rotor magnet spinning?

It just may be possible to set up a sensor coil arrangement where you effectively have near-total EMF cancellation from the spinning rotor magnet such that your sensor coil only picks up induced EMF from the big coil.  That would make it that much easier to detect the alleged over unity magnetic flux signature from the big coil where the big coil is generating much more magnetic flux than it is "supposed" to based on the measured current flow through the coil.

Something like this:  You make two 20-turn 8" diameter sensor coils that are in series and connected by a twisted-pair wire.   If you place them symmetrically on either side of the rotor, and in-line with the rotor-coil horizontal axis, you may be able to achieve your goal.

<Invert EMF sensor>         <rotor>  <big coil>  <Normal EMF sensor>

Note the normal and inverting sensor coils are equidistant from the spinning rotor.  That means you could spin the rotor by hand and tweak one of the coils until you got close to perfect EMF cancellation.

Note the big coil is closer to the normal EMF sensor coil than the inverting EMF sensor coil.  Therefore the normal EMF sensor coil will have a stronger signal than the inverting EMF sensor coil.

The net result is that the pair of EMF sensor coils will show you a signal that is almost exclusively from the big coil while the motor is in operation.  Therefore you should easily be able to detect an increased magnetic flux signature from the big coil showing over unity if it is there.

Onepower,

Quote

So a simple resistor can produce an emission spectra as shown below and can produce a non-linear discharge as shown below?. Can a resistor produce high intensity UV and in some cases X rays?. It's kind of like saying a 20 billion dollar particle accelerator is just a donut in my opinion.

I will give you my interpretation of those graphs.  For starters, when coil does a spark discharge the current drops off to zero and the voltage can vary.  The current does a pretty unremarkable drop off to zero without any craziness in the current waveform.  The current is showing you the "life being sucked out of the coil" as it dissipates all of its stored energy because as we know the energy stored in an inductor is proportional to the square of the current.

As the current drops down to zero you go from a plasma arc to glow discharge to a dark discharge.  There is very little energy dissipated in half the glow discharge and the dark discharge because you are talking about the final whisps of current before death.  I am assuming the emission spectrum is for the glow discharge.

In terms of the operation of this motor, it's all just energy that disappears from the system assuming that you consider heat and a few whisps of visible and invisible radiation to be lost energy.  It's very interesting information to see the discharge process qualified but in the context of what Russ is trying to do it is not really relevant.

It's fair for purposes of this project to call the spark discharge a glorified resistor.

SS

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 20th, 2018, 09:50 PM

Think about this:  For the rotor shaft output to be that much stronger and manifesting mechanical over unity then obviously there must be a much stronger magnetic field pushing on the rotor.  Well, there is only one source for the magnetic field, and that's the big coil.

You're still attempting to look at the system from the vantage point of only the coil... it's the interaction of the coil and the permanent magnet, which I've already discussed in a prior post.

The extra energy is pulled from the quantum vacuum because you're stealing momentum from the orbiting electrons in the permanent magnet. They have nowhere else to get the energy to return to their normal orbital radius, since the energy being transferred to the coil is being taken away and put into a cap. The coil is merely the means of transferring the energy from the orbiting electrons to macroscopic rotation of the permanent magnet itself.

1) Steal orbital momentum from the permanent magnet's electrons via the coil
2) Convert electron orbital momentum to electrical energy
3) Store electrical energy in a cap
4) Magnet extracts energy from quantum vacuum to regain normal electron orbital radius
5) Pulse the cap voltage back through the coil
6) Push on the permanent magnet to sustain its rate of rotation

Newman thought the extra energy was coming from the conversion of matter in the coil into energy... it's not. It's coming from the orbiting electrons in the permanent magnet regaining their normal orbital radius by extracting energy from the quantum vacuum (the quantum vacuum being what sustains electrons in their orbits in the first place, as Boyer and NASA demonstrate in the peer-reviewed studies previously posted).

So he was almost correct in stating that more copper means more power output... had he dug into quantum mechanics a bit, he'd have realized that more copper implies a greater magnetic interaction between the coil and the permanent magnet (ie: lowering the permanent magnet's electron orbital radius more), and a larger machine implies a larger permanent magnet, thus more orbiting electrons extracting more energy from the quantum vacuum after they've had their orbital momentum stolen by the coil.

The arc discharge is a non-issue, a dead end. It does nothing to contribute to the power output of the machine, and in fact represents an energy loss. The machine should run better without it. I believe in later iterations of his motor, Newman took steps to minimize the arcing.

Quote from Cycle on February 20th, 2018, 11:12 PM

You're still attempting to look at the system from the vantage point of only the coil... it's the interaction of the coil and the permanent magnet, which I've already discussed in a prior post.

The extra energy is pulled from the quantum vacuum because you're stealing momentum from the orbiting electrons in the permanent magnet. They have nowhere else to get the energy to return to their normal orbital radius, since the energy being transferred to the coil is being taken away and put into a cap. The coil is merely the means of transferring the energy from the orbiting electrons to macroscopic rotation of the permanent magnet itself.

1) Steal orbital momentum from the permanent magnet's electrons via the coil
2) Convert electron orbital momentum to electrical energy
3) Store electrical energy in a cap
4) Magnet extracts energy from quantum vacuum to regain normal electron orbital radius
5) Pulse the cap voltage back through the coil
6) Push on the permanent magnet to sustain its rate of rotation

Newman thought the extra energy was coming from the conversion of matter in the coil into energy... it's not. It's coming from the orbiting electrons in the permanent magnet regaining their normal orbital radius by extracting energy from the quantum vacuum (the quantum vacuum being what sustains electrons in their orbits in the first place, as Boyer and NASA demonstrate in the peer-reviewed studies previously posted).

So he was almost correct in stating that more copper means more power output... had he dug into quantum mechanics a bit, he'd have realized that more copper implies a greater magnetic interaction between the coil and the permanent magnet (ie: lowering the permanent magnet's electron orbital radius more), and a larger machine implies a larger permanent magnet, thus more orbiting electrons extracting more energy from the quantum vacuum after they've had their orbital momentum stolen by the coil.

The arc discharge is a non-issue, a dead end. It does nothing to contribute to the power output of the machine, and in fact represents an energy loss. The machine should run better without it. I believe in later iterations of his motor, Newman took steps to minimize the arcing.

Reply #1359 > 369

Oxygen is magnetic?!



...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-qAwkgfFQ&feature=youtu.be&t=2m27s

Cymatics is the visualization of sound and vibration in matter, something that has been found in the art and design of cultures from around the world for centuries.
Below are cymatics images of human vowel sounds, stained glass windows, DNA molecules, the vector equilibrium of a tetrahedral array, vortex based mathematics, the vector equilibrium and Torus and galactic toroidial structure...
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3021.msg45023#msg45023

Getting a Grip on the World
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3189.msg48533#msg48533

SS, i have a hard time here with this discussion, for one main reason,

If your out to debunk something you will indeed do it, that's easy.

If your out to succeed in reproducible effects that have been achieved by 3 independent persons and documented, then you will.

what I'm saying is that everyone here is out to prove something right, and also look for new incite that is normally not used in "Standard electrical theory"  but rather is more in the field of understanding the physics of reality.

This takes open minds. looking at everything with question, asking the fundamental questions needed to ask whats really going on here.

what I'm saying is that every test your posing has logic and reason.  and your looking for "Standard electrical theory" outcomes. and you will find them if that all your looking for.

 you will find what you look for...

everyone else here is challenging those  "Standard electrical theory" and so far has found a lot that just dont quite fit. globally things "work" but your telling me that there has been no real new understanding of the basics in over 200 years.

yes, I'm not an expert in all the "Standard electrical theory" and id hate to spend a life time re learning everything that is taught only to find out that its not what I'm looking for.

instead, i rather look for something new, a new way to treat systems that other wise are not fully understood.

if i'm wrong ill state so, and if i'm right ill state so. i'm an hoist man, for the better or worse. im looking for new understanding. not whats already understood.

enough of that,

what have we learned,
when we first set up the coil at the temp lab, there was a lot of very interesting things going on,

The coil was putting out a "wind" i could feel through a thick rubber glove.
when adding the only cap we had things acted totally differently than they do now.

i moved everything to its " home" location and all the same things did not reappear.

what dose this mean? this means that "Standard electrical theory" dose not seem to fit the bill here. Things Changed, just because of the environment. so that's key one.

secondly, we are testing all the same things calmed in all the tech briefs, mostly by Hastings, but there are others.  ( if you did not read the 2 reports in the book you should also read those)

so far we have seen hints of the phenomenon but no real conclusions yet. i feel better control of the coil will help us take all the questioning factors out of the testing.

also, i believe we are below the required input voltage to see fully some of the effects. ( the ones i talk about in my DOC about RF and series resonance coupling to ground) and because this is Richards coil... im not going to blow it up... when i get the other coil in i will max out the voltage and i guarantee ill see it then.

in the end, i'm looking for any and all of those said clams in the information from Hastings and others. so far i have seen small clues that tell me that im on the right track.

the main thing is that this coil was used for RF. and not magnetic induction effect. so trying to reach the magnetic induction effect with this coil might not get us there...

I need a new geometry to see that more clearly.

lastly, I'm also trying some of my own ideas.  ideas that i see might work as each time i test this coil i see something new that i might be able to take advantage of.

such as the effect that the coil can have extra current in it due to the induction effect. then the question is, how can I extract that. and it so seems that i can by using the SRF and shorting the coil in to a cap at the right time as with an open ended coil there is no CEMF and no induction effects to stop the flow of current. so IF the current is pushed out to the ends of the coil as it seems to be, then can we can also neglect the resistance of the coil? all questions I'm out to see he result of.

in the end, you will find what you look for, or you'll look like a foul trying, and I'm good with that.

ive seen a lot of very creditably people receive here Nobel prize many years (or after there dead) after they got shunned out of there own field of interest by others who say "that's impossible" when come to find out... they were right and everyone else was to stubborn in there ways to except it.   

kn, enough of that rant,

i got to get to work,

i think you see my point.

~Russ

PS. there is things in the transient part of the systems that can not be explained by current understanding. This is the field i play in... and i love it! this makes me tick... there is more to understand... "WE" dont understand EVERYTHING.. we just think we do...

Russ,

I think the key point is to test the device.  In other words, we all assume that you will build a faithful replication.  Nobody should fall into the "Bedini trap" where the excuse was always offered up where they said, "It didn't work because you didn't build it properly."  That almost became a religion.  This build is a big fat coil and a rotating magnet and some form of a commutator.  You can indeed build it to the specification.

Cycle has his own view about the quantum vacuum.  In my case I read several times about "large magnetic fields" being created in the device for very little current input.  And there is no mention of a capacitor from what I have read so far.  So I am assuming that the pitch is that this device gives you over unity because large magnetic fields are created because somehow copper atoms ultimately turn into magnetic field energy and it's the more powerful magnetic fields that give you mechanical over unity or the unexplained electrical over unity.

So that's where I am suggesting that you can test for the presence of extra magnetic field energy.  Or you can hook up a prony brake to measure the mechanical output or both.  And I am sure you have your own tests that you want to do.  I also am puzzled that you seem to be chasing after esoteric stuff about the device when they say plain as day that it generates over unity mechanical output and over unity electrical output.

But again just to emphasize my suggestion:  Don't assume that you didn't build it properly and don't assume that if you somehow just tune the timing just right that the over unity will then leap out of the device.  Your build will be FINE.  The commutator timing will be FINE.  Then you want to test it in several ways to look for any EVIDENCE that the claims are true.  If you can't find any evidence of mechanical over unity or extra powerful magnetic fields being produced that are not proportional to the amount of current flowing through the coil, or whatever other tests you actually do, then you have done your job.

On the other hand, the way the reports are written up, it sounds like they set up the motor and over unity was flowing out of the device in multiple ways such that it would be next to impossible for you to not see it for yourself.

I can tell you that after having read the 30-page document and one of the testing documents I don't have much more to say except for hopefully giving you help on how to test the device.  In a relatively short time the build will be a done deal.  It will be all about the testing of the device.

SS

Russ,

Quote

PS. there is things in the transient part of the systems that can not be explained by current understanding.

I really don't think that you are in a position to state this definitively.  "Current understanding" is a vast vast pool of knowledge and you have only tipped your toes into the pool.  If you think you have an unexplained transient anomaly with your setup then perhaps one day we can discuss it on the thread.

SS

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 09:57 AM

Cycle has his own view about the quantum vacuum.

A view bolstered by peer-reviewed research from several credible sources as reflecting reality. There's a reason quantum mechanics is the mainstream theory to mathematically describe our universe.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 09:57 AM

In my case I read several times about "large magnetic fields" being created in the device for very little current input.  And there is no mention of a capacitor from what I have read so far.

In Newman's case, the partially-discharged batteries stood in for the same purpose, merely a place to shuttle the energy while the magnet is recapturing its electrons' orbital momentum via energy drawn from the quantum vacuum, as all electrons do when they have their orbital radius reduced for whatever reason. It's what they must do, the universe won't allow an electron to go below its ground state orbit unless it's driven there by external forces. I can lay out the mathematics of it for you, if you wish, or you can search for it.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 09:57 AM

don't assume that if you somehow just tune the timing just right that the over unity will then leap out of the device.

That's akin to traveling back in time to 1876 and telling Nikolaus Otto that he shouldn't depend upon getting the timing right for his 4 cycle internal combustion engine to work.

Except that's exactly what will happen when it's properly timed. Just as you can't make an internal combustion engine run if the timing is off and you've got your exhaust valve open during the intake stroke or you're firing the spark plug at BDC, the same is true for this machine... the cycle must be timed properly for it to work. The proper operation of the machine depends upon a cycle, after all. It is a cycle which converts the energy in the permanent magnet's electron's orbital momentum into a macroscopic rotation.

Quote from onepower on February 20th, 2018, 10:13 PM

If we could somehow keep the arc in the glow discharge (negative resistance or non-Ohmic region, where current flow increases even with a decrease of voltage) region, that'd make for some interesting results. Hard to do, though. Without current-limiting, it'll jump into the arc region pretty quickly. That's why fluorescent lamps have a ballast. The way they're doing it now for gasoline engine glow-discharge ignitions is to cut the current on and off so quickly it never gets the chance to get to the arc region. That floods the cylinder with free radicals, which causes the entire cylinder full of air/fuel mixture to ignite at once... no flame front, no knocking and a lot less of the fuel being unburned (especially between the piston and top ring), so fewer emissions and a cleaner cylinder, so fewer oil changes and less carbon build-up.

Cycle,

The quantum vacuum explanation is a whole lot to buy into and it's just not for me.  I just can't buy quantum vacuum effects resulting in torque being imparted onto the rotor.

Quote

That's akin to traveling back in time to 1876 and telling Nikolaus Otto that he shouldn't depend upon getting the timing right for his 4 cycle internal combustion engine to work.

Except that's exactly what will happen when it's properly timed.

It's possible that whatever commutator implementation and timing variations Russ tries out, the only things he will observe will be that the rotor will stabilize at different RPMs.  In other words, Russ will be faithfully implementing the Newman design and trying to tweak it.  In the reports proclaiming over unity there is no mention of meticulous hunting for the proper timing.

From my perspective it's a question of getting the process working as per Newman's design.  i.e.; fire-open-short cycles around the two halves of the commutator.  If you implement that process, then the thing is supposed to work.  Slight variations in the timing should not affect or impede the claim about the conversion of copper atoms into energy via E=Mc^2.

The truth is nobody knows, and therein lies the danger.  So many times people replicate something and then latch onto the idea that "they haven't got some specific thing right" and then work on an issue without knowing if it is a real issue or not, or even if there is an issue.

SS

SS,  if your read the book he verry  verry clearly states that timming is critical.  Why would it not be? 

I still feel your looking for somthing "normal" everyone  else is  looking for somthing other... 

If it wer eazy its be done already.  A replication states that you know everything you need to.  We have alot but not everything...

More to do...

Pcb turned out nice. 

And a new video of the 110 35 comutator. 

https://youtu.be/z49pn_OVHLE

~Russ

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 06:10 PM

The quantum vacuum explanation is a whole lot to buy into and it's just not for me.  I just can't buy quantum vacuum effects resulting in torque being imparted onto the rotor.

Well, then you also dismiss the quantum mechanical explanation for a whole host of other phenomena, such as the existence of matter, the Lamb Shift, the Casimir Effect, etc. The quantum vacuum has effects upon everything you see.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 06:10 PM

It's possible that whatever commutator implementation and timing variations Russ tries out, the only things he will observe will be that the rotor will stabilize at different RPMs.  In other words, Russ will be faithfully implementing the Newman design and trying to tweak it.  In the reports proclaiming over unity there is no mention of meticulous hunting for the proper timing.

Of course proper timing is essential... even more essential than proper timing for an internal combustion engine, given that we're working with relativistic speeds of interaction.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 21st, 2018, 06:10 PM

From my perspective it's a question of getting the process working as per Newman's design.  i.e.; fire-open-short cycles around the two halves of the commutator.  If you implement that process, then the thing is supposed to work.  Slight variations in the timing should not affect or impede the claim about the conversion of copper atoms into energy via E=Mc^2.

Copper is not being transformed into energy, except for the very small (1/c² * the amount of energy transferred) amount inherent in every energy transfer.

Copper has a total binding energy of 568 MeV, or 9.02 MeV / nucleon. That 568 MeV is the amount of energy you'd need to provide to break that atom down into its constituent components. The copper atom has a lower energy level than its constituent protons, neutrons and electrons, so you need to provide energy to break it up.

The atomic mass of the protons, neutrons and electrons unbound is 63.52152 u. The copper atom is 62.91367 u. This means that when each copper atom was formed, the formation was exoenergetic.

So just where are you getting the energy to turn those copper atoms back into its constituent components (which you'll need to do prior to unwinding it back into energy), and to run the machine?

And just where are you getting the anti-protons (to address just one of the above components of the copper atom) to unwind the protons back into their constituent quarks? You'll need anti-protons, you know... Fermion Number Conservation is a thing, after all.

And even then, you'll only be breaking the proton down into its constituent quarks (2 up, 1 down)... you'll need anti-quarks to break them down into energy. I assume you have a ready supply of those, too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-RR8zO4ubQ

By the way SS,  I don't beleave in over unity...  As clearly stated in my. Video #6.

There for I'm not looking for it...

The energy clearly comes from some where.  This is the reasion why there is a video series called "the search for answers" and video number 6 was one of them... 

~Russ

Cycle,

When I say "I don't buy the quantum vacuum explanation" I mean your reasoning to go from quantum effects to actually getting torque imparted on the rotor.  I don't buy that leap.  I don't doubt QED and all that stuff.  And that clip was great and I have watched a few other clips by that YouTuber many moons ago.  He is the real thing and very smart.  It has been so long that I covered that material in some physics class in junior college that I was just about learning it all over from scratch.

Yes, with respect to your arguments about the copper issue.  I just don't want to challenge the E=MC^2 argument that Newman makes just for the sake of going with the flow.  I even hijacked the term "sublimates" to describe the alleged copper to energy conversion.

Russ,

I use the term "over unity" in the context of Newman's pitch that copper is directly converted into energy.  Probably not the best choice of words but it is convenient shorthand.  Copper being converted directly into energy inside a pulsing coil sounds far-fetched and I am assuming that you are aware that Newman was mostly dismissed as a crackpot even in free energy circles.

Energy coming from "somewhere" is just as good as saying that "copper sublimates into energy" or "over unity."  We are rooting for you and are assuming that you will find out the answers.

SS

Quote from ~Russ on February 21st, 2018, 06:20 PM

More to do...

Pcb turned out nice. 

And a new video of the 110 35 comutator.

Russ, I need you to put an experiment on your list of "To-Dos"...

I have this hunch, a simple flip-flop commutator with a buzz-box inline.  I mentioned it a while back and I'm not sure if it made it to your list or not.  The "buzz-box" can be replaced with a timing controlled pulsing circuit that by way of a small coil, activates one of your fancy Russian reed switches.  I'm not certain what frequency to shoot for, so try to build it in such a way to provide the widest range you can.  So again, the commutator is real simple--it just flips the polarity so the magnet stays synchronized to the coil.  You may even want to use a DPDT relay for this part with a hall (or optical) sensor to adjust timing.  Timing will probably change as RPMs change.  The pulsed reed switch runs at a stable frequency most suitable for the coil and is no longer RPM dependent.  This pulser should also have some control over duty cycle.  Stick with the reed drive for now--don't think relays are going to cut it for the frequency you are probably going to need .  Hopefully the coil you use to flip the reed switch can toggle fast enough.  I don't think you can use a shunt diode on the reed coil to protect the transistor either.  You already know what will happen--it will keep the coil energized too long and kill your high-side frequency.  Instead use a setup like my Universal Switch with two transistors, each having protection diodes so the transistors are safe but when the switch is off, it's off just like a mechanical switch.

My expectation is this:

When you home-in on the proper frequency & duty cycle, the motoring effect should really take off and at some RPM current will begin to in-rush the batteries; it may even smoke them so have a kill switch handy.

One other thing I was told by Jack Noskills--if you fry a coil, you'll never know except that the coil will never produce the effect it should.  I'm truly hopeful you haven't fried your coil, but it's possible if you can't get it to work like it did initially.  He told me, there's only one way to fix a fried coil--new wire, no other choice.  Once you get the slightest carbon arc that punctures the insulation, it's game over.  You'll never find it unless you have months to check ever millimeter of wire with a microscope.  The tiniest little puncture wound in the insulation will totally change the characteristics of your coil when subjected to high voltage.  And...   If there is one puncture wound, there are probably hundreds more.  This big coil isn't like your rodin coil, the wires are much closer together and cannot still work like your rodin coil does after glowing and producing ozone.  And By the way, when you get this Newman motor working, it should be producing copious amounts of ozone, so good insulation is a must--you might even consider using telephone or communication style wire with rather thick insulation.  If you do, also consider wrapping the coil with 16 or 32 pairs of wire at a time and linking them all in series like you did with the rodin coil.  Those test points could come in handy.  If you do it this way, follow the pattern--don't willy-nilly the series connections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfBlNuTYLTM

"Good luck Jim."

In Russ' latest clip on the new commutator he says the oscillation when the open cycle starts can be up to 13,000 volts peak-to-peak.  It looks to me that might be the coil in self-resonance.

For whatever reason it looks like the plasma burn "resistor" was quickly extinguished resulting in self resonance between the monster inductance of the coil and the relatively minuscule self-capacitance of the coil where there was a moderate amount of energy in the coil for the ring down.  We are back to the "elephant inductor with the mosquito capacitor perched on the shoulder of the elephant" metaphor.  If the elephant sneezes to the mosquito it looks like an earthquake.

E = 1/2 L i^2 and E = 1/2 C v^2.

Therefore:

1/2 L i^2 = 1/2 C v^2

Multiply both sides by 2:

L i^2  = C v^2

Therefore:

v^2 = L/C i^2

Therefore:

v = Sqrt (L/C i^2)

Therefore in this case we know that L is very very large in comparison to C.  Hence you can get very high self-resonant voltages for relatively little initial current flow.

I am impressed SqueezingSparks.  Good to see we have gained someone that
takes a critical look and crunches the numbers to find what kind of baseline
energy can be expected for that Newman motor Russ is building. So anything
over the baseline will find the COP we are looking for.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 22nd, 2018, 06:48 PM

Therefore in this case we know that L is very very large in comparison to C.  Hence you can get very high self-resonant voltages for relatively little initial current flow.

Same as with the Stan Meyer VIC endeavors.