Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
- Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 12:25:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Are we watching the same video? ;-) Did you not see my correction?? the part about rms voltage and current? harry __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 12:25:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Are we watching the same video? ;-) Did you not see my correction?? the part about rms voltage and current? harry That's right. It's the same old issue we've seen over and over again, and discussed here ad nauseam. The I*V is not a measure of power when there are phase angles, transient demand, varying frequencies, or square waves involved. It takes a fast integrating power meter to measure input power. This applies to battery DC input to a device with these kinds of power demands as well. Another issue is there is no apparent measurement of power output. As we have seen before, driving LEDs with transients can cause the perception of an amount of light that requiring more power than actually used. It appears the power produced is a small proportion of the power applied. Lastly, as we all know, if there is a claim of significant overunity, then the loop has to be closed for the claim to be credible. I see no reason to think the device is not a transformer that works by displacing a high mu material field. This is not a new idea. There are commercially produced power supply transformers that work on this principle. They are not overunity. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
- Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 8:52:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 12:25:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Are we watching the same video? ;-) Did you not see my correction?? the part about rms voltage and current? harry That's right. It's the same old issue we've seen over and over again, and discussed here ad nauseam. The I*V is not a measure of power when there are phase angles, transient demand, varying frequencies, or square waves involved. It takes a fast integrating power meter to measure input power. This applies to battery DC input to a device with these kinds of power demands as well. The controller is powered by DC. He measures voltage and current going into into the controller. The controller converts this to electrical pulses which feed the toroidal coil, so don't these measurements give you an upper bound on the input power? Another issue is there is no apparent measurement of power output. As we have seen before, driving LEDs with transients can cause the perception of an amount of light that requiring more power than actually used. It appears the power produced is a small proportion of the power applied. I sent him an email asking for the wattage of the LEDs. Lastly, as we all know, if there is a claim of significant overunity, then the loop has to be closed for the claim to be credible. I see no reason to think the device is not a transformer that works by displacing a high mu material field. This is not a new idea. There are commercially produced power supply transformers that work on this principle. They are not overunity. Probably not... Harry __ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: The controller is powered by DC. He measures voltage and current going into into the controller. The controller converts this to electrical pulses which feed the toroidal coil, so don't these measurements give you an upper bound on the input power? No. THey give a lower bound. Another issue is there is no apparent measurement of power output. As we have seen before, driving LEDs with transients can cause the perception of an amount of light that requiring more power than actually used. It appears the power produced is a small proportion of the power applied. I sent him an email asking for the wattage of the LEDs. Lastly, as we all know, if there is a claim of significant overunity, then the loop has to be closed for the claim to be credible. I see no reason to think the device is not a transformer that works by displacing a high mu material field. This is not a new idea. There are commercially produced power supply transformers that work on this principle. They are not overunity. Probably not... Definitely not. Their performance was measured in the high 90's percent range if I recall. They were similar to the Fig. 1 drawing I sent, except they had 8 (or more) legs instead of two. This kept the permanent magnet flux more constant and permitted an 8 (or more) phase output which was rectified to make DC. They were used in electronics power supplies. That's all I remember. I wouldn't know how to find them without doing a patent search, which is how I originally found them in the first place, I think. It was years ago. Harry Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 24, 2010, at 5:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From: Horace: ... The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. The above should say RMS current and RMS voltage, which is not necessarily the same thing as power. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Can you clarify something for me, Horace. The conjecture that the field oscillates, as you state, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings... is intriguing, particularly since you seem to be saying the field is dynamically oscillating even though there are no moving parts. In layman's terms - what does that mean, particularly energy-wise. My prosaic thinking patterns keep wanting to envision MOVING magnets passing across coils of wire that in turn generate electricity. But nothing seems to be physically moving in this configuration. I'm confused! /:-\ I haven't been following any of this so I should have kept quiet. Sorry if I duplicate what has been said. Also, I should have answered this more thoroughly, sorry. Transformer parts don't move, but they still get energy transferred from a primary to a secondary. They can be viewed as creating magnetic field line loops that cut through the secondary coils and then retreat, cutting the coil again. These field lines can be visualized as moving through the center of the transformer core - even though it has a low mu, in order to form the flux loop that goes through the core. Their density in the hole of the core is low so they have to move faster when traversing the hole in the core. It appears the primary core in the video is small compared to the magnets. This means there is magnetic flux that extends out beyond the core and circles back to the south end of the permanent magnet stack, i.e. that does not go through the core. When the current is high in the primary coil, then only one return leg through the primary torus core is available, thus even more flux is diverted out into the space around the primary. To the degree the primary current plus permanent B field saturates the core then even more flux is diverted out into the nearby space. The nearby space is occupied by the primary. . . The last sentence above should read: The nearby space is occupied by the secondary. . . As the primary current oscillates, the B field that projects into the secondary coil grows large to the side of the primary where the primary flux opposes it, and diminishes where the primary flux reinforces it, but then increases on that side if saturation occurs. I just posted a drawing, Fig. 3, in a separate email that shows how the ejected flux cuts through the secondary coil. The alternating current in the primary ejects one side of the flux and then the other, cutting the secondary coils in the process. It would be interesting to know how much power is being drawn by the LEDs. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Has Naudin just made his transformer more efficient...or is it really a generator? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xS6Fknxv18 Harry The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
A variation. Pulse in primaries P1 or P2 cuts permanent B through secondaries S1 or S2. inline: sketch.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
From: Horace: ... The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Can you clarify something for me, Horace. The conjecture that the field oscillates, as you state, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings... is intriguing, particularly since you seem to be saying the field is dynamically oscillating even though there are no moving parts. In layman's terms - what does that mean, particularly energy-wise. My prosaic thinking patterns keep wanting to envision MOVING magnets passing across coils of wire that in turn generate electricity. But nothing seems to be physically moving in this configuration. I'm confused! /:-\ In your opinion, does this demonstration allegedly show real OU configuration, or is this device demonstrating something else that's not really OU. Where's the energy coming from that allegedly powers the LEDs? Speaking of energy, I wonder if the magnet inserted into the torus will eventually lose its magnetism if the device continues to power the LEDs? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
A silly variation, but closer in nature. inline: 100_2469.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 5:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From: Horace: ... The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Can you clarify something for me, Horace. The conjecture that the field oscillates, as you state, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings... is intriguing, particularly since you seem to be saying the field is dynamically oscillating even though there are no moving parts. In layman's terms - what does that mean, particularly energy-wise. My prosaic thinking patterns keep wanting to envision MOVING magnets passing across coils of wire that in turn generate electricity. But nothing seems to be physically moving in this configuration. I'm confused! /:-\ Transformer parts don't move, but they still get energy transferred from a primary to a secondary. In your opinion, does this demonstration allegedly show real OU configuration, or is this device demonstrating something else that's not really OU. As I said earlier, there is no measurement of input energy. So who knows? I think the odds of free energy from this are *very* slim. The responsible thing to do is to measure it, but that spoils all the fun I assume. Where's the energy coming from that allegedly powers the LEDs? It is coming from the signal generator that drives his primary. Speaking of energy, I wonder if the magnet inserted into the torus will eventually lose its magnetism if the device continues to power the LEDs? Sure, all magnets do. His will faster because there is no keeper. The little drawings I sent avoids the keeper problem by providing multiple paths for the permanent field. The primaries simply divert the permanent magnet B field. It is interesting that, in my drawings, the primary current increasing eliminates the secondary coil magnetic field rather than increasing it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
inline: 100_2470.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ 100_2470.JPG
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 5:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From: Horace: ... The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. The above should say RMS current and RMS voltage, which is not necessarily the same thing as power. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Can you clarify something for me, Horace. The conjecture that the field oscillates, as you state, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings... is intriguing, particularly since you seem to be saying the field is dynamically oscillating even though there are no moving parts. In layman's terms - what does that mean, particularly energy-wise. My prosaic thinking patterns keep wanting to envision MOVING magnets passing across coils of wire that in turn generate electricity. But nothing seems to be physically moving in this configuration. I'm confused! /:-\ I haven't been following any of this so I should have kept quiet. Sorry if I duplicate what has been said. Also, I should have answered this more thoroughly, sorry. Transformer parts don't move, but they still get energy transferred from a primary to a secondary. They can be viewed as creating magnetic field line loops that cut through the secondary coils and then retreat, cutting the coil again. These field lines can be visualized as moving through the center of the transformer core - even though it has a low mu, in order to form the flux loop that goes through the core. Their density in the hole of the core is low so they have to move faster when traversing the hole in the core. It appears the primary core in the video is small compared to the magnets. This means there is magnetic flux that extends out beyond the core and circles back to the south end of the permanent magnet stack, i.e. that does not go through the core. When the current is high in the primary coil, then only one return leg through the primary torus core is available, thus even more flux is diverted out into the space around the primary. To the degree the primary current plus permanent B field saturates the core then even more flux is diverted out into the nearby space. The nearby space is occupied by the primary. As the primary current oscillates, the B field that projects into the secondary coil grows large to the side of the primary where the primary flux opposes it, and diminishes where the primary flux reinforces it, but then increases on that side if saturation occurs. I just posted a drawing, Fig. 3, in a separate email that shows how the ejected flux cuts through the secondary coil. The alternating current in the primary ejects one side of the flux and then the other, cutting the secondary coils in the process. It would be interesting to know how much power is being drawn by the LEDs. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
- Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 9:30:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Has Naudin just made his transformer more efficient...or is it really a generator? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xS6Fknxv18 Harry The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. Are we watching the same video? ;-) Near the beginning of the video this green blurb appears briefly: voltage and current are measured at the input of the controller... The digital meters display the input voltage and the input current and both numbers remain constant. Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 9:30:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Has Naudin just made his transformer more efficient...or is it really a generator? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xS6Fknxv18 Harry The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. Are we watching the same video? ;-) Did you not see my correction?? Near the beginning of the video this green blurb appears briefly: voltage and current are measured at the input of the controller... The digital meters display the input voltage and the input current and both numbers remain constant. Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
