Quote

By mid-2010 Open Source was well on its way to dominance and still, Newman couldn't or wouldn't embrace it fully.  So sad.  By now there should be hundreds of shops that could whip one of these machines out in a weekend.

Would Joe Newman had a better outcome if he had taken actions to open source? The open source model evolved in the software industry. Small companies disappeared. We still have the majors in the end cost saving open source but the systems of hardware and software combination still are proprietary commercial in consumer end usage. The ideas of an open internet still costs the people each hundreds dollars in material market value of computer hardware.

The non implementation could be blamed on that market management review. How should he have continued providing source support for his technology, without sufficient material action. That is in the absence or presence of a product or proposed initiative. He did not make a deal he could be completely happy with but what terms would he make. We can look at the case study or history what might have motived him and what might have not motivated his target audience. The consumer has power in daily choices the industries should have the organizational capacity. The end result the guy in the video was asking Newman was do 99% first but in the store.

                 

Quote from onepower on December 16th, 2017, 06:32 AM

Think of all the problems we face on this planet and they cannot agree on what happens in a loop of wire with two resistors.... priceless.

I'm envisioning an experiment here based off of Dr. Lewin's in-class demonstration...

Suppose we use the inductive pulse to trigger an optical coupler.  We locate two optical couplers on opposing sides of the magnetic flux loop.  In this scenario it is simply yes/no, pass/fail, we got a pulse or we did not.  Imagine the spectacle of having these two optical couplers connected to the exact same spot; one triggers and the other does not.  We switch them; still the one on the same side triggers and the other does not.  This should prove beyond any doubt the position of the loop that encloses the magnetic flux is extremely important.  Take it a step further...

On the Newman device, now the position of the commutators relative to the magnetic flux vectors becomes extremely important.  Exact same circuit mechanically repositioned makes all the difference in the world--one way you get over unity; the other way you get legacy behavior.

Quote from talisman on December 16th, 2017, 10:48 AM

Would Joe Newman had a better outcome if he had taken actions to open source?

I can say with certainty that Russ Gries has far more video views & subscribers than Joseph Newman.  What does that tell you?

It tells me Newman could have located Russ and said, "Got a project for you.  Here are the complete plans for my machine.  I need you to replicate this thing; work out all the kinks and get it public domain, ASAP.  You'll have to scape and scrounge for the materials and it won't be cheap and you'll have to make some sacrifices to get this done, but I'm counting on you as well as a whole bunch of other people.  Here's what you do..."

Does anyone honestly think Russ would have turned Newman down?  Even though Russ knows far more now then he did then, I'd be completely caught off guard if he said no.

What do you think people would have done when they showed up the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement in Boulder, Colorado?  Do you think they would have walked away hoping someone would have something in the future?  No, they would have taken the plans Russ had thousands of copies of and they would have went home and built this machine.  Russ could have named his price to begin consulting on this machine and if that wasn't enough, he could maybe drag Newman around with him to give credit where credit is due.  Neither Russ nor Newman would be financially strapped.  This whole process would have taken off like the California wild fires.

Things didn't go that way, but like I tend to say, "Three strikes and you are not out.  There is always one more thing you can do."

Quote from Matt Watts on December 16th, 2017, 10:56 AM

I'm envisioning an experiment here based off of Dr. Lewin's in-class demonstration...

Suppose we use the inductive pulse to trigger an optical coupler.  We locate two optical couplers on opposing sides of the magnetic flux loop.  In this scenario it is simply yes/no, pass/fail, we got a pulse or we did not.  Imagine the spectacle of having these two optical couplers connected to the exact same spot; one triggers and the other does not.  We switch them; still the one on the same side triggers and the other does not.  This should prove beyond any doubt the position of the loop that encloses the magnetic flux is extremely important.  Take it a step further...

On the Newman device, now the position of the commutators relative to the magnetic flux vectors becomes extremely important.  Exact same circuit mechanically repositioned makes all the difference in the world--one way you get over unity; the other way you get legacy behavior.

Over unity?  No such thing...

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on December 16th, 2017, 11:17 AM

Over unity?  No such thing...

Okay, okay.

One way you get plus + plus;
The other way you get minus + plus.

 :-P

My point is you MUST have non-conservative fields in-play here or forget the whole thing, nature will balance (before you do) and you'll get zero.

Quote from Matt Watts on December 16th, 2017, 11:10 AM

I can say with certainty that Russ Gries has far more video views & subscribers than Joseph Newman.  What does that tell you?

It tells me Newman could have located Russ and said, "Got a project for you.  Here are the complete plans for my machine.  I need you to replicate this thing; work out all the kinks and get it public domain, ASAP.  You'll have to scape and scrounge for the materials and it won't be cheap and you'll have to make some sacrifices to get this done, but I'm counting on you as well as a whole bunch of other people.  Here's what you do..."

Does anyone honestly think Russ would have turned Newman down?  Even though Russ knows far more now then he did then, I'd be completely caught off guard if he said no.

What do you think people would have done when they showed up the 2013 Global Breakthrough Energy Movement in Boulder, Colorado?  Do you think they would have walked away hoping someone would have something in the future?  No, they would have taken the plans Russ had thousands of copies of and they would have went home and built this machine.  Russ could have named his price to begin consulting on this machine and if that wasn't enough, he could maybe drag Newman around with him to give credit where credit is due.  Neither Russ nor Newman would be financially strapped.  This whole process would have taken off like the California wild fires.

Things didn't go that way, but like I tend to say, "Three strikes and you are not out.  There is always one more thing you can do."

We just. Got. Started. ;)

Its all in the timming!!

I looked at newman before. And had the same conclusion as the rest of the world (most any way) did.  And it was just another story.  But after realizeing its all documented for us to just do...  So now so do...

~Russ

Quote from Matt Watts on December 16th, 2017, 11:20 AM

Okay, okay.

One way you get plus + plus;
The other way you get minus + plus.

 :-P

My point is you MUST have non-conservative fields in-play here or forget the whole thing, nature will balance (before you do) and you'll get zero.

Luckily what newman did was use known  understanding... This is the key.  There is no "sudo" anything here. No puff of smoke and mirrors...
Just pure understanding of the real way to use magnetisum...

And the only thing I have every studied that had a clear answer to secuess. With out talking nonsense ...

;)   
~Russ

Can you point me to where Newman shows the mechanical orientation of the commutator in respect to the magnets?

I'm thinking this is highly critical, especially for the single gap designs, not so much for the multi-gap but still important.

Again, for everyone's reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI



I also recommend everyone snag these videos while they still exist:
https://archive.org/download/MIT8.02S02

I'm pretty certain at some point in the future you will be referring back to them when you get stumped.

higher rez...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQbA2jwkWI

~Russ

http://freepdfhosting.com/d5fc27ec92.pdf

well... one thing was good to see, Faraday's law ALLWAYS HOLDS. and Newman principles work on just that...

~Russ

"And I don't argue with people that think they know, but they don't."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5be3zpj_eCY

Matt
I did Lewin's experiment and it's kind of amazing how much drama popped up on the net because of it. It is very simple to understand, the battery in the loop acts like a single point source of potential and an induced loop acts like an infinite number of points of potential along the loop...because the potential is induced. Thus we can plainly see a point source like a battery does not always act like an induced loop because they are not the same thing...period.

Why anyone would argue they must be the same when it is obvious they are not is beyond me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LzT_YZ0xCFY

Sounds like a comeate new thred discussion.

I haven't watched the above but I think its relevent.

~Russ

once youre fired up remember to keep a small battery powered am radio nearby (tick, tick, tick, tick, ......) i wanna see this beast coil

Yes Indeed J!!  Will do. As well as the geiger counter. ;)

~Russ

We are working with non-conservative fields and the path is important.  Wherever a current loop can form, we must be aware of that physical path.  If a load or commutator lies in that path, we need to be aware of its position relative to the magnetic flux lines.

Dr. Lewin's demonstration actually shows a situation where the induced EMF has a reverse polarity to what would be normally expected.  With a reversed polarity, then one might wonder if Lenz Law is being applied to the source of the induction.  I wouldn't be surprised to discover the Lorenz force subjected to the rotor in Newman's motor actually aids its rotation.  If so, then it should come as no surprise why Newman can run his massive motor on penlight batteries.

Anyway, just be very cognizant of where you place physical components within and around the Newman motor.  If you get something backwards, you'll likely have an energy consuming pig instead of a self-running motor/generator slowly converting copper mass into energy.

You have to see the big picture for what it is and Lewin explains this near the end. Here we can see Kirchhhoff's Law directly contradicts Faraday's Law... period. However this is a very big problem for the text book thumpers because they consider every law as the gospel without question. Thus both laws must always be right in their mind and never be questioned despite the fact any fool can see they cannot both be right.

As such this is not a physics problem nor is it a math problem it is a mental problem or dysfunction with those who take what others say as gospel without question and do not check there premise or there facts. So this problem will never be solved because neither party will ever believe the other and there is no amount of proof which could change their minds.

The moral of this story?... It doesn't matter what others believe because beliefs cannot change reality. In fact there are many supposed laws which directly contradict one another because one law was applied where it cannot apply. However to know one has to actually test the laws at the bench with an open mind and look for the loopholes.

A math law is taken as an irrefutable proof in the material realm.

The distinction is seldom made between a universal law and a law limited by the scope of parameters.
To suggest that a law has validity beyond its scope is a misapplication.
These misperceptions are averted by knowing the difference.

Its not that electrical generating apparatus defies laws of physics.
It is as much by making fuller use of the laws of physics being consistent with the output results.     

Quote from ~Russ on December 12th, 2017, 09:32 PM

well that's interesting... where did his inspiration come from...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd2rdiVKwL4

~Russ

You asked and I shall give the answer. Tesla.

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-390721-dynamo-electric-machine

 Instead of giving the source it's proper due they tried to subvert the origin of this. Tesla was the inspiration and it was high jacked by profit takers instead of shared in the open and for free. Now they are trying to latch onto this technology and claim it as their own. I have been trying to get this out there for over 10 years now. Then the final stroke came and they latched onto the zero force motor which is a half baked implementation of the two phase induction motor generator Tesla devised.
 If you want to know more about this device then research this patent heavily. The problem is a lot of external apparatuses were left out of this design due to the patent process but all you have to do is look into other patents by Tesla that fill the voids in this patent.
 The premise behind this device is that it maintains the 90 degree difference between the two fields (E and M). The M is locked into a conversion loop between the rotor and field coils. The Magnetic field is converted into electric between the rotor core and field core. When this is done the magnetic field is formed and it cuts the field coils on it's way to the field coil which generates a high voltage in the field coils which radiates into the rotor coil transforming the E field to a heavy magnetic field which loops back to the field core generating more E field and so on. The magneto is used to generate high voltage that will feed a cap dump circuit which feeds the field coils to start the process.
 The rotor coil can be tapped to a certain depletion level and still maintain the magnetic loop between the rotor core and field core. So this system will have to be designed with a max load in mind. Scale being the only limit to the max load.

 I'm glad you started looking into Mr. Lewin. He was my first online teacher of physics. Look for the water drop experiment and you should start to see the loops that can be created and harvested for energy channeling.

 By the way, if you get rid of the rotor magnets and use heavy coils self terminated and open and close the coils at the proper time you can convert that to an AC sign wave that can be used however you want through an additional transformer.

 Tesla called this device a rotating transformer, And one with a feedback loop designed in the electric to magnetic conversion process. It is also self aligning so you don't have to make a perfect machine to get this feedback effect. I would also suggest that this might just be a steady state motor that if you take anything out of the system it compensates. Retarding the rotor from the synchronous position generates more current in the rotor. Speeding up the rotor also would generate additional energy. Kinda cool right?

 I also think that the rotor should have a virtual ground connected to it to dissipate the static electric field that would form inside of the generator section. This would allow for a flow to happen in the device which should increase the output as well.

 It is this system that he had Westinghouse build for his Roadster experiment with the addition of the Bessemer steel that Tesla found to be more efficient working with the magnetic cores. Now ask yourself, Why would they get rid of the cheapest way to make a soft steel that has better performance then most core material? Tesla gave Westinghouse the idea to use it in their transformers that he had made for him by them. Now not many businesses use Bessemer Steel except for wire brushes. I tried to source it but no one seems to know about it but yet this was the first cheapest way that they made all steel products like railroad tracks and steel for buildings. Yet for some odd reason it was intentionally forgotten. Ask yourself how they could build steel structure buildings way back and they would last a very long time. Now ask yourself why they got rid of this material? Another question is this: Did Westinghouse make superior transformers after being told about this by Tesla? The answer is yes they did.

jbigness5

Quote

Instead of giving the source it's proper due they tried to subvert the origin of this. Tesla was the inspiration and it was high jacked by profit takers instead of shared in the open and for free. Now they are trying to latch onto this technology and claim it as their own. I have been trying to get this out there for over 10 years now.

You have seen the difficulties of Joe Newman and Paul Babcock in getting their generator manufactured on the market and used by
the energy consuming public. What difficulties in the last ten years prevented your generator from getting out there?

Tesla and other expired patents are used by the large industrial motor manufacturers. They do not have to share with Tesla. Not
only that they have a saturated market so they have to compete only cost. Companies can at the same time can make improvements
based on the same theory and patent that to give them a competitive edge.

Energy consumers and manufacturers only provide the means if they see their need is filled not the need of the maker of the product.

 
   

 It's not my generator it is Tesla's design. I have only tried to get people to understand how it works.

 The problem is people only see the magnetic field and don't remember there is an electric field 90 degrees out of orientation from the magnetic. In fact I am of the educated opinion that the Electric field generates the magnetic field in all cases. Either externally to a coil or internally in a magnet as a locked in snapshot of the plasma field around the magnet. The plasma is attracted to the electric field and condenses in layers around the e-field.

 With the field cores wound around a toroid this technically negates the magnetic field to the internal iron field core. The electric field is free to circulate around the wires like fingers pointing out from the wire. This follows the wire being pushed by the geometry of the solenoid wrapped around the toroid, as it rotates around the core it swipes or cuts into the rotor coils which are turned via the rotor cores magnetic connection to the field core. It's a looped transformer that auto balances. The more you retard the rotor the more the lines cut into the rotor coils and generate more current in them. So another generator could be run off of the rotor shaft is needed. The more draw the slower the rotor turns and the more the rotor coils generate a heavy current.
 This particular patent includes a prime mover to use as a minimum level of rotations of the rotor. Since Mr. Bedini showed a tad bit of this in his zero force motor you can see that using this as a motor doesn't work well but if used as a generator it is a powerhouse if the proper arrangements are made. Check the field coils out and then look at Bedini's take. Bedini was looking at the wrong side of the who device. He actually made the field core section and tried to use it as a motor, which it is not.

 Russ you remember the Leedskalnin holder? Think of what this would hold in the toroid. How long did your holder hold the magnetic field in that toroid? And yes it was a toroid, a self terminated circular path.

Deal with it...

One day at a time...

We are here...  we are now...

Let's do somthing amazing!!

~Russ

PS.  I may need to move the above discussion to a new thred.  Its deep and deserves its own space!!!

Some times you need a Reality check.  Heres one for you.

https://youtu.be/CrJIzrmX1mI

That's right....  Watch it again. It will Get you back on track...  And fired up too.

This just makes me cringe...

Also there is a bunch of good raw fottage found know where else. 

Ceramic magents with holes...

~Russ

PS.  That's the 30 awg wire coming off there.  The 5 is underneath.