I have been looking for this kind of nuts-and-bolts information
for some time...
"Optimizing a Permanent Magnet Alternator for Micro-hydro
Application" is an excellent article for anyone interested in
small-scale wind/solar/hydro energy ... and beyond ... even with
an eye towards the Holy Grail of OU power (such as by using a
"negative resistance" or other gainful regime between the drive
motor and alternator reflux current) < big g> .
It was written by Dr Tom Chalko, Scientific E Research, Mt Best,
Australia, and centers on a particular motor used "down under"
which is an offshoot of the famous CSIRO designed motor which is
98+% efficient - a figure which is far more than most small motors
in the 1 kW range. This particular motor comes from a washing
machine - which is the most efficient in the world, according to
the manufacturer - Fisher and Paykel. Robin v S. has probably
heard of them.
I had been wondering how high the *net* efficient that this kind
of setup could be, that is: when the ultra-efficient motor is
rewired as a generator and the power recirculated back. The answer
is far more complex than you might imagine but the executive
summary is ~97+ % for the optimized generator.
Consequently with an optimized setup including a 98% efficient
motor driving a 97 % efficient generator, and with the key
ingredient - something "magic" boosting the return power, one
would need "only" a COP of about 1.06-1.07 *net*
electrical-to-electrical overunity in their OU device, in order to
achieve the self-running condition.
Caveat: This feat will NOT eliminate the oil crisis at first, but
is guaranteed to win you the Nobel prize within a few years and
the No-Mobil prize in a few decades.
Stated another way, if you can tailor even a 7% gain in an
electrical to electrical device - and heaven knows, there are
many, many of these on the internet with far greater claims...
like the PAGD (anode glow) variety, and like the claimed
negative-resistance range in the Chung experiment:
"Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber
composites," by Shoukai Wang and D.D.L. Chung - Composites, Part
B, Vol. 30, 1999, p. 579-590.
..and several Naudin experiments:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/cnrexp1.htm
...and a plethora of others, too numerous to detail now.
That figure-of-merit is a remarkably low requirement when you
weigh it against the many claims - it suggests that a COP = 1.07
is sufficient for self-power. And again, this would be e-2-e and
it will not end the oil crisis today - but it will guarantee
follow-on R&D funding in the tens of billions - that is - only if
you can pull off self-power (several days should be adequate).
Stated very simply: self-power is INDISPUTABLE proof of overunity
(so long as there are no hidden wires, batteries, etc) and it is
likely that nothing short of this requirement will ever silence
the skeptics.
Abstract:
This article reports a procedure for modifying an existing
permanent magnet alternator-rectifier system to achieve the
maximum possible efficiency in the predetermined output power
range at a given rotating speed.
Several methods of altering performance of the
alternator-rectifier system are discussed and compared. The
article demonstrates that a 1kW alternator-rectifier system can be
intelligently modified to generate as little as 100 Watts with 97%
efficiency. The article also presents a simple and accurate method
of measuring alternator efficiency.
In order to improve the efficiency of any alternator-rectifier
system it seems necessary to match the actual power extracted from
the alternator with its "optimal" output power at which the
alternator has the maximum possible efficiency. This can be
achieved either by modifying alternator design parameters or its
operating conditions....
This article is important for demonstrating that by reducing the
core size [or matching the power without doing so] it is possible
to generate 100Watts with 97.1% efficiency at a voltage of our
choice... and it is a short step from there to the further
conclusions above.
OK, Now we are getting down to brass tacks, as they say, and there
is no excuse for not proving OU beyond any doubt (i.e. by showing
self-power) with any device claiming even a modest COP (e-2-e) ...
Perhaps Terry will forward this information to Mr. Sprain - with
the advice that if had he followed this simple route, and put his
funds into self-powering his device, instead of spending megabucks
on patent attorneys and ambiguous torque measuring devices - then
he would either be on the road to Stockholm or back to the drawing
board - but with some real knowledge of the bottom line situation
with his device. He has neither now.
Jones
