Quote from Matt Watts on November 24th, 2017, 11:53 PM

Your poll question...

See page 461.

Sick to the plan man.  :-)

I know I even have the dimensions used. There not. In the book...

But I had to. Ask...  ;)
~Russ

PS.  Just look over my spred sheet so I can get stuff orderd. Lol.

Please. :)

Ok, i hope i don't make my self look stupid but are you sure that this is right ?
Total resistance / number of parallel wires (only if you have the same length (ohms), then you can calculate it like this)
1 240 651 / 56 = 22 154 Ohms

Yeah that one is confusing.

Its the total resystnace. Devided by the number of strands.

But then those are in parallel. So the calculation for parallel resistors on those..

~Russ

No no, i mean that you divided 1 240 651 / 56 parallel = 22 154 Ohm and again / 56 = 395 Ohms which is around your result.
So, you divided Total Ohms (one long wire) 56x not once but twice which is wrong from my understanding :)
Unles you are planing to have 56x parallel connected in series with another 56 parallel but that would be a different result (44 308 Ohms).

Edit: English grammar.

Ah yes.  This works only if all the Resistance are equal.

At some. Point. I did that and it did not work. However your right. 

So is the sheet wrong or just an over complicated equation?  ;)

But  check it with odd numbers. As this is where I saw the errors.
Thanks!

~Russ 

56 parallel can handle max current of 1.3 Amps but that is the absolute maximum.
and by your Ohms result and the voltage you want, you would end up with 0.75 Amp and 227 Watt.

So far, for me, i have not found any other mistake yet, but yes, that one calculation in the excel was over complicated :)

Ok. Yes all wires will be Conected in parallel.  So there is a calualtion for parallel power and series power.. 

Also pulsed power will be diffrent on the current. 

So this is all good.

You go over the bobbin calculations?  And how. Much wire will fit on it?  Those are critical for the bobbin I'll have to make. 

Thanks!!!!

~Russ

Ok i'm done but, you won't be happy :)
This is only my results and no one should build the Newman device according to this excel because im not an expert.

Someone else should check it and say if i'm right or if i made a mistake somewhere.

BTW: those purple values is my edited values and some of them are no longer automaticly calculated so, i would not change anything on the line of AWG 38.

Edit: I forgot to add a note, where did those 26 turns came from.

149 mm Depth / AWG 38 (0.1mm) = 1490 wires in one layer.
1490 / 56 parallel = 26.6 turns

Thanks!

I'm not 100% sure what you did but ill keep looking it over :) ( magntron to look at it he made a lot of the changes)

attached is the wire data. theses are the ones we used.

Heavy build.

also some of the things crossed out are used to calculate other things.

some stuff is for out info, like the Lb for each strand... so we can order the right amount for strand on a bobbin... ... Etc.

thanks!

~Russ

ok, Thanks to Tavote, we did have an error in the length calculation. and has been fixed. the quotes below are just for you to see what we see. dont take them with any negativity :)

"his value of 26 turns / layer with 56 wires is 26 but I calculate 20.6"
"the circumference of the core is 2l + 2h = 1720.85mm if the wire had zero thickness (add a little for wire thickness (I had 1721.37)"
"1720.85 mm by 56 strands = 96367, not 96320 like he has"
"I just found an error in the length calculation (thanks to Tavote)"

so thanks for checking that!

also note to why some things are slightly off.

"As the wire goes around the coil you have to add the thickness of the wire to each layer.
So for example to the initial coil height (for the first layer)
you have wire on each side so the dimension becomes
 coil height + 2 times the wire diameter.
The same on the coil length, so for the total coil length you add the
coil length + 2 times the wire diameter. 
So when you calculate the final coil height it must be
the initial height + (2 times the wire diameter times the number of layers).
Same thing for the final coil length.
2 time the wire diameter times the number of layers + the initial length.
The reason you need the average length of a layer is because of the fact that each layer grows.
that is also why the actual weight is larger than the target weight.
that is also why the actual length of wire used is greater than the computed length from the target weight"   

everything in dark blue is kinda custom / for our own uses. so ignore those.
I highlighted everything in YELLOW that are for sure correct. so you can check them but dont change them.
also the MMF for parall wires I'm sure is wrong. just ignore it. I'm still trying to figure that one out...

so if your up for it have a look again. now that we have a few more details locked in. also added a few datasheets to the second page!

on a side note,
seems strange to me that you cant calculate the MMF with total amount of turns ( in parallel) * the current.  they all are adding. same thing with the MMF. that still is confusing.

one massive wire, one loop, = x MMF.
1000 loops in series same amount of copper same current = More MMF??

However one loop of 1000 wires in Parallel = the same as one loop of MMF...???

seems it only works with the same copper size....  that formula works ONLY with the same wire size! ?!?!?

so if we increase the wire size. keep the same current we should get a bigger MMF?

the adding effect is local to each wire, if that s true then the above MMF calculations for parallel wires should add..... but they dont. so that's not true.

in the end. i still feel its the LB that madder... MASS... only thing that makes the MMF calculations work...

more turns, same wire size, same current... must be the mass... its sure not the current! but we need to think. what did we change?
resistance and voltage... more input power...

but the reverse is true. keep the same resistance, same voltage, same current, same input power. but increase the wire size and length to match the resistance and ... MORE MMF! hummm...

Thanks!

~Russ

PS. were no experts either :) but will get there ...

backup...
 from:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/newmscop.htm
~Russ

Original pictures courtesy of Evan Soule

enjoy... ~Russ

One thing I'm pretty certain of:

One turn of 56 strands of wire WILL NOT be approximate to 56 turns of one strand.  The layers will not mesh near as nicely; when layers don't mesh nicely, the diameter per layer starts to fluctuate from the math ricky tick.

The alternative is to bond the 56 strands into the proper arrangement (which is hugely complicated) then take the dimensions of the bonded strands and wrap them as though they were a solid piece of wire.  This will get you closer but the work involved is tremendous.

Quote from Matt Watts on November 26th, 2017, 12:45 AM

I thing I'm pretty certain of:

One turn of 56 strands of wire WILL NOT be approximate to 56 turns of one strand.  The layers will not mesh near as nicely; when layers don't mesh nicely, the diameter per layer starts to fluctuate from the math ricky tick.

i think this is what we want... acts more like individual strands this way...

~Russ

My vote is to oversize your bobbin and when you think you're about complete, strip the insulation, take a resistance measurement and see if you really need to add more wire or not.

Let me ask, how do you plan to connect each new spool with the previous one you just wrapped?   Solder and shrink tape each strand?

I suppose you could just solder them all into a connector and just plug the end connector into the start connector and keep going.  The strands wouldn't be completely isolated all the way through start-to-finish, but I doubt that will pose any big problem.  The coils should still work fine.  You're only interested in surface area anyway.

Quote from Matt Watts on November 26th, 2017, 12:49 AM

My vote is to oversize your bobbin and when you think you're about complete, strip the insulation, take a resistance measurement and see if you really need to add more wire or not.

Let me ask, how do you plan to connect each new spool with the previous one you just wrapped?   Solder and shrink tape each strand?

no, I'm going to buy the right amount of wire per spool... then just go to town ( all at once) till i hit the first empty spool...
there all in parall. this is why the spread sheet has the single weight row. 100 lb total / strands... 

i can check each wire if need be... after its wrapped like this...

~Russ

And what wire size have you settled on?

And how many strands for certain?

Russ, the Excel looks much better :)
I agree with Matt, if that bobbin is the final version then it is small and the rotor will be even smaller, its about the law a leverage, bigger the rotor, the more powerful and easier it will be to run anything with the same amount of input power.

Also while you bring this up, are you planning to wind the coil one strand after another or all 56 at the same time (with is what i would do).
If one strand after another then the turns of each added strand will be less and less while winding all 56 at the same time all will have give or take the same number of turns.

Edit: ops i'm slow, half of it is already answered :)

Quote from Matt Watts on November 26th, 2017, 12:58 AM

And what wire size have you settled on?

And how many strands for certain?

30 for 1 set, 38 for the other set. 200lb a set. just a he did...

this gives me options.

I'm guessing just stick with 56...

that's right at 2.5lb per spool...

also, i feel it very necessary to build the patent version. one long wire spool of 30, 145lb. mag on the outside.

why? because they both have there "to shows" for us to learn... so that's what I'm going to do.

starting with the patent version... its the first step me thinks... its " straight forward" comparing the 2...

~Russ

dont forget, most ALL the data is there for that unit... the other ones were Joe trying to improve on his understanding... but the proof was already there...

but like i say. they both will teach us what we want to see... one is a motor / generator, one is just a generator with a spinning timing device.

~Russ

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac0702.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac1118.htm

:grouphug:

:rtard:

ZZzzzzzz...


 :offtobed:


~rUSS

Quote from sonnet on November 25th, 2017, 12:04 AM

Without a doubt the most important statement of this entire thread.
 Try not to leave others at the bottom of the mountain

Newman talked about his machine so much, but failed to bring but a handful of people with him on the mountain path.
He did leave the path mapped though for that I'm grateful.
Another man walked the mountain path before newman, the mountain path was actually written in his name. when you learn his name you will see he was the mountain path.
We do in deed stand on the shoulders of giants.

We all have a duty to share this knowledge, We all may reach a understanding of the mountain path at different times but as soon as your sure, pls share....this will honour the path makers and will be the only way this knowledge comes into the hands of the human race.
Regards

I agree with you, that is why i'm giving this to you all.

It looks like to be the original paper and it does looks like that it is not edited, look at the date on the left side and from who it is from.
Other papers similar to this one has been edited and has poor quality.

Merry christmas :)

Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/19970414210643/http://www.overunity.de:80/nnew/nnew.htm


Those other two is the only available Big Eureka pdf versions i have found.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111103162354/http://www.josephnewman.com/JNGraph1a.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20110928094105/http://www.josephnewman.com/JNGraph4.pdf

Don't download the Sample.png image, that is just to show image on this forum what the pdf has inside.

Edit: English grammar.

Thank you Tavote, your contributions are gratefully acknowledged.