Quote from ~Russ on November 19th, 2017, 06:55 PM

Poll added above.

i say window but 70 lbs per coil

Quote from Magneton on November 19th, 2017, 08:56 PM

i say window but 70 lbs per coil

ok, thanks for the note.

so a par of coils is the 140lb. got it.

~Russ

Quote from Matt Watts on November 19th, 2017, 08:17 PM

So it appears to me we must put a definite current across the coil in order to see the effect of inductance.  Voltage alone will shoot straight through.

Try connecting a capacitor between the top connection of the coil and the (+) terminal of the battery. With a small enough cap, you can charge the coil and cap quickly without a lot of current. Build up the voltage, restrict the amps as you do so. Then disconnect the battery and connect your PNP/NPN transistor pair across the coil/cap to pump the ring-down voltage to a cap or battery. The coil (L) and cap (C) will form an LC oscillator which should ring nicely.

In my thinking, we want to minimize the effect of inductance during coil charging, but maximize it during ringdown.

Quote from Cycle on November 19th, 2017, 09:07 PM

Try connecting a capacitor between the top connection of the coil and the (+) terminal of the battery. With a small enough cap, you can charge the coil and cap quickly without a lot of current. Build up the voltage, restrict the amps as you do so. Then disconnect the battery and connect your PNP/NPN transistor pair across the coil/cap to pump the ring-down voltage to a cap or battery. The coil (L) and cap (C) will form an LC oscillator which should ring nicely.

In my thinking, we want to minimize the effect of inductance during coil charging, but maximize it during ringdown.

good thoughts. i like this idea. its semular to my past work but i never had enough wire to make it work.
i wanted to add a cap on the other side of the the coil so when you flip the switch you could charge the inductor in to the cap ( inrush). but... if the current never made it through the cap... no decomposition of the battery would acurr. .. instead it would just oscillate. you could use the magnetic field and do it over again. but i needed a big potential that took time and this small coil seems to do that. more testing to do though to prove any of those thoughts...

~Russ . 

As regards minimizing induction effects during coil charging and maximizing induction effects during coil ringdown, perhaps a means of switching a bifilar coil between oppositely-connected for charging, and series-connected for ringdown?

I think you should make a small prototype. maybe 10 lbs per coil. that would be a lot of turns. and see how that works.

Quote from hydniq on November 19th, 2017, 10:01 PM

I think you should make a small prototype. maybe 10 lbs per coil. that would be a lot of turns. and see how that works.

Steve, thanks for the note.
but,  all of newsman devices were massive...

to my understanding 150,000 turns minimum.. E=MC^2
I have a 1 lb spool, it should show results. i think i did, however i need more mass...

thanks for the post!! and vote!
~Russ

quick post,
asked for a little help last night, woke with clarification...have to post later off to work, will explain... all is clear again for me.

Quote from sonnet on November 19th, 2017, 11:46 PM

quick post,
asked for a little help last night, woke with clarification...have to post later off to work, will explain... all is clear again for me.

dido...

here is the start... calculation all the way to help guide us.

theses numbers are close...

V1

~Russ

I vote Other because:
90 Kg (200 Pounds) of copper for a proof of concept ?

Here is a link to a Joseph Newman Facts
Facts Concerning The Technology of Joseph Newman
At the bottom of the page there are 11 facts but the important onces are numbers 3 and 9.

3) Joseph Newman has constructed many operational prototypes of his technology over the years, ranging in size from 4 pounds to 15,000 pounds.

9) Technically-speaking, what Joseph Newman teaches is that one's goal in the construction of one of his operational Motor/Generators is "to have the LEAST amount of current input to create the GREATEST amount of atomic domain alignment within the material of the conductor, thereby causing the GREATEST magnetic field to be created."

The third one is telling me that if the device won't work with 10 or 30 pound of copper, then we are doing something wrong.

So, about the poll, the first one 55 miles of 5 AWG.
(0.3133 Ohm per 1000 feet) times 290 400 feet is (90 982 Ohm per 55 miles), so far so good.
If 1000 feet weight 100 lb then 290 400 feet(55 miles) would weight 29 040 lb (which is 19 172 Kg == 19.1 tonnes) oh my ... no way.
19.1 tonnes of copper ? nope no way.

The second one is 200LB of 38 or 30 awg on a singe spool with magnet outside.
By my understanding so far, we want to do parallel windings and not a single spool so, nope definitely not this one because we dont want tu put in thousands of volts. As Newman states "The more wires in parallel, the less voltage is needed but wires must be verry long".
Page 464

Third one is 200lb of 30 or 38 on each coil of a window motor. Yet again, if those two coils are connected parallel then even this would not satisfy me and who knows how much voltage you would have to put in. Its always better to wound the coil with parallel winding because you can always change the configuration to less parallel and more series. So i would not go this way.

So, i think that it is all about the commutator.

Quote

Newman Quote
There are no real size constraints with respect to his technology and there are two methods of increasing the energy output: increase the amount of copper utilized in the conductor coil and/or increase the rpms of the commutator. The latter can be done by increasing the applied voltage (not the current which is what costs money) up to the maximum atomic alignment of the atomic domains in the copper conductor. And, if you seek to align more atomic domains, then use more copper. Once the atomic domains of the copper conductor are aligned, the copper becomes magnetic and thereby releases energy electromagnetically in accordance with E = mc^2.

and my final answer is to do a smaller model with 10 to 30 pounds of copper (give or take) for the proof of concept.

Oh uff, that took me more than 2 hours to write.

Tavote

Ok guys not long now and I'll post statements which should enable you to see the right path with regards to how much wire. Will take me a couple of hours to write this up with clarity...Will post in the following hours.

Thanks Tavote. 

There is one thing here to look at.

Yes you can build it from 4lb - 5000lb or. More. 

But what he states in a video some where was spot on.

The size is proportional to the process. 

His 140lb patent build was 10watts output.  For 1/2 watt in. 

Scale that down to 4lb and do the math.  You'll allmoat never be able to measure that. And also at some point the losses in the system over come the output. This is why we all see somthing with our small devices now but get no positive outcome.  We need to get past that threshold. 

Right now we want to do one thing.  Prove the consept. (Or should i say show it again for our selfs)
 Newman did that with a massage coil.  He did not build a 10-30lb motor. He build a massage unit.  Somthing that everyone else would look at us and call us crazy. Lol.  However with out a dought it proved the point. 80,000Watts output it was estimated... With an input that was almost nothing...

So we won't go that big.  But we need to go large.

As I said,  " go big or go home" is the way I'm viewing this. 

I want no doughs in my mined at all.... 

Thanks for taking the time to post those quotes. All good stuff to rember.

Also don't forget he learned over time how to make. It Smaller and better. However we are starting at  the begening to walks in his foot steps. It makes sence to do this I think.

~Russ

Thank you for bearing with me this will spread over a few posts Ill put them on as quick as possible to avoid them being broken up by others posts.

Hi guys,
Sat there yesterday thinking there is something wrong with the calculations of copper we need, A good nights sleep was the answer.
What you were doing in your calculations was trying to make a 100% efficient motor on the input fire side.
You have to see this motor as two separate processes, two separate circuits if that helps.

First the fire segment is one.
Second the short segment.

Fire is input power and the amount of copper to achieve 100% efficiency is what you were calculating for the input.
But in actual fact our real efficiency is based on both sides of both circuits

Fire segment power – output power

Our output power should be at least 10x the magnitude of the input, this will negate the losses incurred by the power consumption of the batteries. So it matters not that the initial power applied to the coil from the batteries is consuming power through the current flow. And at a later stage when the motor is running we can put this power back we took from the batteries.

What we need to make sure is that the magnetic field held in the short, is kept there for approximately (2x minimum) 10x the duration which exceeds the power calculated it would have cost us if we were running it off the battery energy.

So choose a wire length of substantial length, work out the current used to power the fire segment including the coil for the shortest duration that we can achieve comfortably, not impossible figures of time. This figure is now the figure we work too, to make the length of the coil. Because the output from this coil the short, should be (2xminium) or hopefully if we get it right about 10X the output of the input value.

So once again if we make a 80% efficient input and get 130% output from the coil in terms of magnetic strength from the short we are onto a winner.

So accept a loss on the input side when calculating that part of the process, i.e. not building it to beat the propagation of current through the circuit. Just build it to the time we can shut the current flow off the fastest. The time that takes is the  amount of copper to buy.

Once you have this we can reduce the copper needed by the frequency of the short circuit, I don't think I'm wrong with a conservative 10X we should be able to do more.

In pic 1 you will see Newman refer to the importance of remembering the energy output

In picture 2 Newman refers to the energy efficiency, he says  “the most efficient system design is the one in which the smallest amount of external current input will cause the greatest amount of atom alignment and un-alignment within the system”
I have rammed this point to far for my own good now because you were calculating the most efficient system, which made the amount of copper to high.
Again he makes reference to the output being greater than the external power input (the battery), so he's telling us the output is more efficient than the input

In picture 3 &4 Newman talks about the importance of the commutator and I have to state as this point the blank segment cannot be over looked as this segment releases the alignment of the atoms before the short section and the magnetic field collapses to get the current flow in the right direction. Without the blank your commutator is just working the circuit with a spark gap. Not unlike the theoretical drawings of energy transfer Russ did from one cap to another where we saw a small small amount of energy regained. In pic 3 Newman explains this and makes a point of telling you to use the blank and make it bigger.
In the continuation pic 4 tells how he uses the sparks from the blanks to gain electrical power directly from the circuit. But I must stress the real power comes from the torque of this motor, the more segments the more torque. If we use the torque to drive a generator on the rotor shaft we will gain more power than the Newman motor delivers in electrical power from the circuit.

In picture 5&6 Newman explains the importance of the commutator, the diameter if increased will create the ability to make shorter and shorter segments, this will bring quicker and quicker shut off current in the fire stage helping us to reduce the on time from the external batteries, making our motor closer and closer to 100% efficiency in the fire section of the motor that we were stupidly trying to get in our early copper sizing.

Picture 7 just confirms that other people using a reed switch and small coil (copper weight) will see a glimpse of the power and there short sightedness will take them down that path of what we are doing but without the weight of copper atoms.

ok so thats it guys,
If you have understood me correctly we can greatly reduce the amount of copper for good reasons...
I propose a re-vote on the copper using new assumptions.

200lb or 140lb of 30 or 38 on each coil of a window motor. is not a tall order to make.pros, good speed, loads of torque, self starter, cons price, weight, timing must be understood by builder, I believe I understand it.

200LB or 140lb of 38 or 30 awg on a singe spool with magnet outside (prefer inside).  pros easier to build, cheaper to build...cons low rpm, more hassle to start up

If a multi-commutator are used like in a multiple coil build we are limiting the diameter size of the commutator by the inability to make a strong,wide diameter, balanced commutator so it gets harder to engineer a multiple commutator so Newman kept it small but by doing that he restricted the amount of segments on his commutator, so tried to compensate by using higher voltage, this brought another problem of arcing so he doubled the commutator for each coil. that's how it panned out.

ok, funny, last nigh i wend over this same information.

and i agree.

so that's it. ill start the plan for a 2 coil minimum window stile motor. ill plan for 4 coils just to have it planed out. i remember he stated he had 30 awg on the inner 2 coils and 38 on the outer. that's not a bad idea so i have 2 coils that differ to test with.

I will be selecting my coil via a minim of 150,000 turns...  and or minim 140lb...

The motor coils will be 2-4 foot long, 5x5" trays.

a select set of wires in parall. will do the math to find out what works with 2.5 or 5lb spools...

The rotor will match that. ill make it fit after i decide the coils. steal hex shaft. magnets. no less than 1/2"

the plan has began.

the spreed sheet i posted has some errors. and is being updated...

Thanks everyone for there input.

~Russ

Matt never explained why the "other"...  when you get a chance please do share your thoughts.

Thanks!

~Russ

ok...glad you get the info, reassuring to have people you know understand your thinking and vice versa.
There is a math to all this but we can really only find it on the back of our own experiments as precise specs are open to interpretation. but I feel we are within a working range to get results when we look at the info we do have...Newman had his way of saying things and you do have to switch to his thinking getting there getting there. It will be done.

alsoread page 297 - 302 with that chapter 8.

Then once you do theses will make scene.

the key factor is atom turns... and how much it takes to align those atoms...  out with the old Ampere turns and in with the Atom turns...

you will see why i want to get past 150,000 turns as Newman did. have a look where it lays on the graphs...

~Russ