Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Newman Motor Finally Explained?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by wantomake;

    Ricards,
    I recognized that closed minded non-buildering disruptor from the beginning. Only answer is the "ignore list" setting. Ahhh so peaceful and quiet.

    wantomake
    As much as you would like to pretend its my problem is yours. Hate to tell ya but you are living in the stone age.

    In fact I did 'build' the circuit in SPICE as you can see in the gifs I provided, you would be wise not to pretend otherwise.

    I built the circuit in a matter of maybe 5 minutes each, the time consuming part is preparing them to put up here to teach you guys whats going on.

    What Can You Do With SPICE?

    More specifically, it is a general-purpose circuit simulation program that provides linear AC analysis, non-linear transient analysis, and nonlinear DC analysis.

    Analysis is performed by solving combinations of theoretical and experimental (device model) equations representing the behavior of elements based on Kirkhoff's current and voltage laws, utilizing modified nodal point analysis.

    Device Model

    A device model is an analytical expression that was developed based on theoretical and experimental study.

    Elements and devices can be simulated:
    • Passive components (i.e. resistors, capacitors, inductors)
    • Active devices (e.g. diodes, bipolar transistors, MOSFETs)
    • Transmission lines
    • Power sources

    Analysis methods:
    • Transient
    • DC
    • Small-signal AC
    • Noise

    Until SPICE, IC design was carried out entirely by hand.
    What is SPICE? | Electronics Basics | ROHM
    Spice modeling is how we design circuits today instead of wasting time and resources by winding coils only to scrap them and find it all in the scrap yard when you guys give up because your hand wound coils do not work the way you dreamed.

    So unless you can show us some mysterious mojo schtick going on that no one in the history of electricity every thought of the SPICE analysis will give you the 'correct' answers for your design no wire required, things like stiffler is doing excepted since the program has no algorithm for spacial inductance that I am aware of. Newman, smith and stevens tpu have nothing to do with spacial inductance.

    The newman sparkler is a fraud, just like the tpu and that suit case guy dennis or don smith or whatever his name is. They prey on people who can not see through their scam.

    I even went so far in trying to help you as to give you the stiffler resonator youtube clip which has been proven to work by several replications, but its a lot more complicated and requires an excellent understanding of induction principles and what it takes to set the whole system into oscillation.

    So you see there are things that actually do work out here but it seems some people are prone to waste their time thinking they will be the one to make the impossible possible! It hasnt happened yet and it wont be happening anytime soon.

    You can thank ricards for taking it off topic with his so called 'simple circuit'.

    Personally I'd like to see people work on projects that are possible and can lead to success instead of failure. Whats important is to understand what is really going on with these devices not what one 'hopes' is going on. The frauds and their worshiping apologists are the disruptors not me.

    Another person to check out is the oldscientist on youtube, he does a good job on most of his experiments and has equipment to back it up and if you are into Tesla coils Meyl does the best job I have seen out here.
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-13-2018, 07:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wantomake
    replied
    [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    after having seen the circuit closer look, I realized it is not the circuit I built..
    your circuit is wrong.. I see no path for that cap to take the inductive discharge. rather than c-e of the transistor..
    perhaps it will work if you reverse the diode at the top..

    anyway Its out of topic and you probably would just state otherwise.. taking this into a senseless closed minded discussion.
    Ricards,
    I recognized that closed minded non-buildering disruptor from the beginning. Only answer is the "ignore list" setting. Ahhh so peaceful and quiet.

    wantomake
    Last edited by wantomake; 05-13-2018, 12:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    after having seen the circuit closer look, I realized it is not the circuit I built..
    your circuit is wrong.. I see no path for that cap to take the inductive discharge. rather than c-e of the transistor..
    perhaps it will work if you reverse the diode at the top..

    anyway Its out of topic and you probably would just state otherwise.. taking this into a senseless closed minded discussion.
    What continues to be incomprehensible to me is why you persist in forcing me to correct everything you say out here. I suppose the spice software is closed minded too? Are you serious or just trolling me?

    No its not the circuit you built, I told you several posts ago it is what you must do to correct the circuit you built because your circuit has errors. Your discharged output cap is in series with the 'source' which cannot be if you want to charge the output cap off the pulses from the coil.




    I used a manual switch in place of the transistor to make it easy because frankly you are wasting everyone time out here, but this hopefully will put this to rest. You can see the cap on the right charges just fine and dandy in the negative direction with the diode as drawn.

    Your continued mistake is to charge c2 direct off of c1 which is what will happen if you reverse the diode.

    Here is your circuit:





    The transistor is a switch:



    Below is the same thing as your circuit replacing the transistor with a switch, the reed and magnet is irrelevant and useless, all you need to do is turn your transistor on and leave it on to charge the cap, no pulses from the coil whatsoever just like in the spice I made to help you understand the problem.



    As you can see you are just dumping the voltage from one cap to the other. The voltage on the discharged cap goes immediately to max, all you had to do was turn on your transistor and leave it on, like a switch as I have shown above. Its directly charging one cap from another and all your coil is doing is adding a small delay to the charge time without any switching required.

    You dont need the coil at all, its just acting like a hunk of wire between the cap and switch or transistor. I suppose to be fair, in some respects learning what doesnt work is as important as learning what does
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-13-2018, 10:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    Originally posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
    Its difficult to comprehend why you are having so much trouble with such a simple circuit. I hope this helps.




    The battery is not in the circuit when it is running so adding a coil between the battery and the cap does nothing at all.

    The switch is placed to the left to charge the source cap, once the source cap is charged the switch is placed to the right for operation and as you can see the battery is completely removed from the circuit. I omitted the transistor switching circuit for less clutter.

    C1 is the source cap, D2 in series with the the output cap charges c2, D3 is just added for safety so you dont toast your transistor. I omitted D1 and put up the original drawing.

    The circuit you used for your test has the output cap in series with the transistor and charges it directly off the source. The circuit as shown above only allows pulses through from the coil to the output or load cap.

    If you want correct results you need to do your experiment again using the above circuit.

    Yes I have a closed mind because laws of physics are called laws because you cannot defeat them. If you or anyone else could we would be running our cars using your free energy devices long ago, and none of that changes the fact these guys are frauds.

    Again I dont want to discourage anyone from leaning about coils, but I can tell people out here that a little bit of school goes a long way, both in producing correct designs and understanding what is really going on and why you will never get OU from coils caps and magnets, unless they are set up to receive some outside source, like stifflers resonator.
    after having seen the circuit closer look, I realized it is not the circuit I built..
    your circuit is wrong.. I see no path for that cap to take the inductive discharge. rather than c-e of the transistor..
    perhaps it will work if you reverse the diode at the top..

    anyway Its out of topic and you probably would just state otherwise.. taking this into a senseless closed minded discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    kokomojo,

    I'm on this side as well, I just don't like the closed mindedness your showing on experiments like this.. and by the way I already built that circuit. thank you.

    if you put 1 more coil on that wire in between cap and battery you would have an output there from the "Charging of the capacitor" if you add this to your overall system, it will increase efficiency overall.

    Its difficult to comprehend why you are having so much trouble with such a simple circuit. I hope this helps.




    The battery is not in the circuit when it is running so adding a coil between the battery and the cap does nothing at all.

    The switch is placed to the left to charge the source cap, once the source cap is charged the switch is placed to the right for operation and as you can see the battery is completely removed from the circuit. I omitted the transistor switching circuit for less clutter.

    C1 is the source cap, D2 in series with the the output cap charges c2, D3 is just added for safety so you dont toast your transistor. I omitted D1 and put up the original drawing.

    The circuit you used for your test has the output cap in series with the transistor and charges it directly off the source. The circuit as shown above only allows pulses through from the coil to the output or load cap.

    If you want correct results you need to do your experiment again using the above circuit.

    Yes I have a closed mind because laws of physics are called laws because you cannot defeat them. If you or anyone else could we would be running our cars using your free energy devices long ago, and none of that changes the fact these guys are frauds.

    Again I dont want to discourage anyone from leaning about coils, but I can tell people out here that a little bit of school goes a long way, both in producing correct designs and understanding what is really going on and why you will never get OU from coils caps and magnets, unless they are set up to receive some outside source, like stifflers resonator.
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-12-2018, 01:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    Originally posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
    puhlease, you cant even tell me who 'they' are and what their secret 'truth' is that you go on about.

    I even gave you a circuit to properly accomplish the test you want to make and I posted stifflers 3 coil array that is known to work as several people have replicated it. Something you can build and expect success in the end but you insist on chasing ghosts and imagined facts.

    You should have more appreciation for those who are trying to help you instead of ridiculing them for their education, especially when they are on your side, the quest for free energy.
    kokomojo,

    I'm on this side as well, I just don't like the closed mindedness your showing on experiments like this.. and by the way I already built that circuit. thank you.

    if you put 1 more coil on that wire in between cap and battery you would have an output there from the "Charging of the capacitor" if you add this to your overall system, it will increase efficiency overall.
    Last edited by ricards; 05-11-2018, 08:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    Kokomojo,

    I feel sorry for you my friend. If you can't accept simple Additional facts aside from what conventional teachings gives us.. What you believe will get you nowhere..
    puhlease, you cant even tell me who 'they' are and what their secret 'truth' is that you go on about.

    I even gave you a circuit to properly accomplish the test you want to make and I posted stifflers 3 coil array that is known to work as several people have replicated it. Something you can build and expect success in the end but you insist on chasing ghosts and imagined facts.

    You should have more appreciation for those who are trying to help you instead of ridiculing them for their education, especially when they are on your side, the quest for free energy.
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-11-2018, 02:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    Originally posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
    Sorry I am not the one using incorrect terminology you are. When you say increasing the mass it can mean going from awg 30 to awg000 in which the copper is the size of a dime. In other words the way you stated it is totally meaningless.

    Again 'correctly' stated you increased the inductance of course you will get more emf with more inductance.

    Another thing they are not 'discharges' unless you have a spark gap.

    Yes entropy is there for a good reason, its why you cant get OU from coils caps and magnets, not to mention the other losses explained in the study material I posted for you that you apparently did not read.

    Who is they and what truth do you think 'they' are telling?
    Kokomojo,

    I feel sorry for you my friend. If you can't accept simple Additional facts aside from what conventional teachings gives us.. What you believe will get you nowhere..

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    Kokomojo,

    It seems you have your own way of interpreting things, that is good but please don't apply it to us.
    A 1kg of #20 wire is the same mass as 1kg of #32 wire.. isnt it? Why argue with how he increase the mass?.

    Just to mention in my experiments I use the same wire guage.

    I have seen the effect with my own eyes, have tested how much charge I could get from a single pulse from two different mass of coil. Same wire size, the bigger coil offers higher charge per pulse.. it makes sense really you have higher inductance larger imductive diacharges.

    Entropy is there for a good reason. Not to stop us.

    On experiment 1 though I was able to get motor action on the process of equalizing the caps. Sure it super small. But if you get the idea and apply on bigger scale like increasing voltage and cap sizes.. That super small gets bigger as well..

    Counter emf another obstacle.. still not to stop us. Do you know how to wind coils to minimize it?.. there are ways i have seen people claim how teach how.. i immitated and followed.. guess what?.. their telling the truth

    Sorry I am not the one using incorrect terminology you are. When you say increasing the mass it can mean going from awg 30 to awg000 in which the copper is the size of a dime. In other words the way you stated it is totally meaningless.

    Again 'correctly' stated you increased the inductance of course you will get more emf with more inductance.

    Another thing they are not 'discharges' unless you have a spark gap.

    Yes entropy is there for a good reason, its why you cant get OU from coils caps and magnets, not to mention the other losses explained in the study material I posted for you that you apparently did not read.

    Who is they and what truth do you think 'they' are telling?

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    Originally posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
    Nature offers us 'entropy', you are looking at the generating effects and dismissing out of hand the counter emf effects that kill the generating effects.

    The increase in copper mass resulted in better conductance so of course you will get a greater voltage, or power transfer.

    experiment 1 was simply equalized voltage between 2 caps, nothing to do with motors.

    His idea was to wind a coil with 100 miles of wire which is why it took 100 9 volt batteries to run it. That is not increasing copper mass. Increasing copper mass is when you go from a number 30 awg to 10awg, not add 100 miles of the same size wire to it.
    Kokomojo,

    It seems you have your own way of interpreting things, that is good but please don't apply it to us.
    A 1kg of #20 wire is the same mass as 1kg of #32 wire.. isnt it? Why argue with how he increase the mass?.

    Just to mention in my experiments I use the same wire guage.

    I have seen the effect with my own eyes, have tested how much charge I could get from a single pulse from two different mass of coil. Same wire size, the bigger coil offers higher charge per pulse.. it makes sense really you have higher inductance larger imductive diacharges.

    Entropy is there for a good reason. Not to stop us.

    On experiment 1 though I was able to get motor action on the process of equalizing the caps. Sure it super small. But if you get the idea and apply on bigger scale like increasing voltage and cap sizes.. That super small gets bigger as well..

    Counter emf another obstacle.. still not to stop us. Do you know how to wind coils to minimize it?.. there are ways i have seen people claim how teach how.. i immitated and followed.. guess what?.. their telling the truth
    Last edited by ricards; 05-10-2018, 06:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    Kokomojo,

    Yeah sorry, self switching coil..

    The idea of the experiment was to test if you could get something out of magnetic field collapse, it proved its worth, its not to show OU by itself..
    You missed exp no 1, to see if the motor consumes the "energy".

    If your reasoning that I should only get the spikes, and not the current flow.. that is not being smart at all,
    Your right we can never exceed the energy we get back from what we put into a coil, but you can get motor action work and recover some of your electrical input energy, if you would have a motor that could achieve 90% eff. And be able to get recovery from coil collapse you should be able to do more work which in turn to generate more energy..
    That is the point. To get the most out of the energy you have..

    If you disregard the inductive discharges you lose, if you disregard the motor action you lose as well, why choose if you can get both?..

    Newman always do claim 100% direct conversion of matter to energy of his machine why?.. he is very well aware that fact that an inductive discharge could not exceed 100% of the input energy but is achievable how? His idea was to increase the copper mass, i find that to be true by the same ezperiments i posted above, I have created a table showing an increase in copper mass coils resulted in an imcrease in final resting voltage of the capacitors..
    What else?..
    Lets not forget the fact that a magnet spinning inside a coil is a generator as well.. if you would add the generated voltage from this.. it just keeps adding..

    You just gonna have to be wise, take everything nature offers you...
    Nature offers us 'entropy', you are looking at the generating effects and dismissing out of hand the counter emf effects that kill the generating effects.

    The increase in copper mass resulted in better conductance so of course you will get a greater voltage, or power transfer.

    experiment 1 was simply equalized voltage between 2 caps, nothing to do with motors.

    His idea was to wind a coil with 100 miles of wire which is why it took 100 9 volt batteries to run it. That is not increasing copper mass. Increasing copper mass is when you go from a number 30 awg to 10awg, not add 100 miles of the same size wire to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    Kokomojo,

    Yeah sorry, self switching coil..

    The idea of the experiment was to test if you could get something out of magnetic field collapse, it proved its worth, its not to show OU by itself..
    You missed exp no 1, to see if the motor consumes the "energy".

    If your reasoning that I should only get the spikes, and not the current flow.. that is not being smart at all,
    Your right we can never exceed the energy we get back from what we put into a coil, but you can get motor action work and recover some of your electrical input energy, if you would have a motor that could achieve 90% eff. And be able to get recovery from coil collapse you should be able to do more work which in turn to generate more energy..
    That is the point. To get the most out of the energy you have..

    If you disregard the inductive discharges you lose, if you disregard the motor action you lose as well, why choose if you can get both?..

    Newman always do claim 100% direct conversion of matter to energy of his machine why?.. he is very well aware that fact that an inductive discharge could not exceed 100% of the input energy but is achievable how? His idea was to increase the copper mass, i find that to be true by the same ezperiments i posted above, I have created a table showing an increase in copper mass coils resulted in an imcrease in final resting voltage of the capacitors..
    What else?..
    Lets not forget the fact that a magnet spinning inside a coil is a generator as well.. if you would add the generated voltage from this.. it just keeps adding..

    You just gonna have to be wise, take everything nature offers you...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    kokomojo,

    quick reply,

    you find out more about the experiment here,

    http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ll+experiments

    its a small and simple experiment..

    though I have to clarify.. self oscillating coil means, If you connect it to a power source.. It would switch itself on and off..

    got to go.

    first blush glance there is an error in your second circuit, its not as described. if you want to get so called energy from your coil on the collapsing field you cant have the cap directly being fed from the transistor/coil, or in series as you have it.

    You would need to run a series diode to capture only the pulse not the pulse plus the driving current. In other words your circuit is not designed to provide the data that you described.

    Also the correct description would be 'self switching' not self oscillating. self switching because while the switch point is determined by the some value of magnetism self oscillating refers to a stand alone coil, not an automatic switching arrangement.

    You would need to isolate your cap from being directly driven so that you only get the collapse voltage using something along these lines:



    the diode across the transistor is for protection from reverse bias which would cause a c-e punch through and short but may be removed if your negative spikes across the collector are not too high since the reverse voltage would clamp at the voltage on the output cap, removing it would not be proper design methods however. thats a standard ole chopper inverter btw. I suppose you could also add a diode across the coil to ring back to the source.

    But no matter what you do you wont get OU out of it. (at least not in the final analysis)

    this is a self oscillating coil:

    Driving LED, No Battery and No Transistor

    Published on Feb 24, 2011
    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIIhgHTEoM0[/VIDEO]
    Using just self resonance in three properly chosen and spaced coils coupled to earth will allow a condition where LED(s) can be driven. Coils MUST be spaced properly and all must match as close as possible to the same SRF. With a diode and small capacitor a circuit is constructed that will oscillate and build to a point of powering LED(s). Is there an energy gain in the space between coils when positioned properly? Energy coupling from coil to coil through space sees a merry dance between spatial partners.
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-10-2018, 11:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricards
    replied
    kokomojo,

    quick reply,

    you find out more about the experiment here,

    http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ll+experiments

    its a small and simple experiment..

    though I have to clarify.. self oscillating coil means, If you connect it to a power source.. It would switch itself on and off..

    got to go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kokomoj0
    replied
    Originally posted by ricards View Post
    kokomojo,

    I see your point, no need to mention someone else who isn't relevant to the thread.

    I simply gave a real life example the name is irrelevant.


    It's just that you don't see "The Point" of Newman motor or pulse motors in general (switch on and off).

    Its a sparkler with very loose coupling coefficient and very low efficiency.


    I based this because you state "Grounding is Irrelevant"..

    It is for motors in so far as sucking all your energy away.


    By all means all the measurement and test of conventional science fall into the category of "Facts" or "The Truth", nothing wrong there..

    Like I said however, the measuring accuracy is severely limited as they are highly dependent on the signal quality being measured.


    but Is that ALL there is to it?..

    when a coil is energized and switched off, you would have an inductive discharge from coil magnetic field collapse, technically this is energy, and is recoverable..

    The collapsing magnetic field creates a momentary pulse with a total output that less than the input, as I said earlier limited by the coil resistance, thermal, and magnetic losses etc.


    when you have recovered energy from your input, do you not add it to the total efficiency of the machine?..

    No its not additive, its a ratio of input to output.


    now If you would have a machine that constantly have inductive discharges and you ground it.. all the inductive discharges would go to ground (as that is its nature to ground itself)..

    if Inductive Discharges are recoverable energy.. technically speaking you are leaking energy to the ground, doing no work which will result in lower overall total efficiency of the motor.. is it not?..

    yes/no, I'd have to see the circuit

    I had an experiment.. a self oscillating coil, 1 power source (capacitor) and 1 recovery (capacitor)..

    If you have a self oscillating coil like stifflers it should charge the cap indefinitely.


    first test.
    Initially I connected two capacitors together (one charged and one is not) upon connection the voltage would balance (if you would calculate the total energy of the capacitors you would have 1/2 of the energy than what you initially have).

    The voltage divides between the 2, if your cap were a 'perfect' cap you would have no losses.


    second test.
    next I did the same test only this time I have a coil in series and it is pulsing (on and off) and made the circuit so I would have the inductive discharges recovered in the second cap.
    test was done and I compared the total energy in both capacitors to be higher compared to non-pulsing.

    Its not clear if this is the same test. So you pulsed 1/2 the cap voltage to the second cap instead of simply shorting 2 caps together as you did the first time is that it?



    third test.
    same with the second test now this time with a much bigger coil..
    Results shows that the total energy in both capacitors now is even higher than the second..

    It should be if you are using stiffler style self oscillating coils since they will oscillate with no input what so ever.

    from these statements can you still say "Grounding is Irrelevant".. when in a very simple test shows that Inductive discharge is recoverable energy..

    Thats a nonsequitur conclusion without further information what and how you did what you did.

    I was able to recover as much as 89% of the initial energy in that experiment. and that is without motor action..

    Which should prove to you that you are 12% below the point you need for over unity. To get ou you must be over 100% recovery.


    energy doesn't necessarily have to come from an outside source, in fact you can have the energy from the very "energy" that you started with..

    "energy" can neither be created nor destroyed,
    what makes you think it should come from some "Source".
    calculating efficiency

    https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circui...Power_Transfer

    When you are using coils, caps, and magnets it does have to come from an outside source because ou is not possible under those conditions.

    http://www.psma.com/sites/default/fi...plications.pdf

    as for multimeter accuracy, you meter wont even know a 5ghz signal exists if you try to measure it, same problem with measuring random harmonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter
    Last edited by Kokomoj0; 05-10-2018, 01:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X