Terry, Michael, Vo,
Here are some edited comments from a member of the MPI engineering team that
might be of interest. Comments that would reveal proprietary information
have been omitted.
"The PDF details a properly done analysis of True Power input, and actual
torque output. Sprain does not seem to capture BEMF, but still this
carefully, and independently measured performance is a mere 25% by accurate
means!!!
(Sprain) is ignorant of how to measure, and the best (no losses) simulation
of his form is reciprocal.
(You will find that the rest of the power is eaten by I^2R, and friction -
...it is nothing more than a pulse motor with the added (drag mostly) of the
spiral ramp of stator mags added to the pulse motor. the ramp of PM's does
nothing but add a reciprocal boost and drag, and contributes nothing to the
gain mechanism, except eddy drag of the conductive magnets.) ..(there is
nothing of merit in Sprain's design).
(This measurement of Sprain's device is doing only useful COP - ... and is
only 25% useful).
Mark
Magnetic Power Inc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Vo]: Re: Hairy Paul Sprain Magnetic Motor
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:12:14 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Jullian
(should be _Harry_ Paul Sprain according to the US 6954019 patent document,
not
Henry, I have corrected the subject line and added "overunity disputed" to
make
the thread look more appealing to our fellow Vorts)
TB: Ackshully "Hairy" would be more apropos. BTW, "overunity disputed" is
somewhat redundant as this is always the case. :-)
MJ: Thanks Terry for your objective introduction of my position, in spite
of your
not agreing with it and of the big dollars at stake. The documents I will
refer
to are in the public file folders you gave us a link to:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/
1/ The coil's DC resistance argument you reported was inspired to me by the
rough "sanity check" Ohm's law prediction of coil current at page 5 of the
"Sprain Motor Early Analysis by Independent Lab" pdf document. The damped
oscillation current trace in CH2 of the "Sprain Motor electric drive pulse
waveform photo (BMP)" oscillogram, of which we see more than a half-period,
clearly converges to ~2 divisions. This suggests that 2 divisions on the
oscillogram scale to 20A (steady state current of a ~1 ohm static
resistance
coil driven by 20VDC) rather than 2A as claimed.
TB: Yes, but your cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see that
there is a large reverse electromotive force caused by the approaching
rotor magnet which must be overcome by the power supply. You also
acknowledged that the power supply display shows a RMS current of less than
0.06 A, from a video that is no longer publicly available.
MJ: 2/ I have a second argument pointing to the same conclusion: the
voltage drop of
the coil driving FET, which Terry told me was of the IRF250 family, is of
at
least 1V as can be seen on the oscillogram (CH1). I remember Jonfli on this
list
noted that 1V drop was a lot for the claimed low current of 2A, and might
be
improved by using a FET with a lower ON resistance. I looked up the IRF250
ON
resistance (RDSon) and found it is in fact quite low already, 0.085 ohms
max,
which requires more than 10A to yield the observed 1V voltage drop (Ohm's
law
again). This suggests that coil current is at least 5 times the claimed
value of
2A.
TB: You also refuse to accept that I have data which shows that there is a
5 V drop between the drain and source of the gating circuit indicating that
the field effect transistor is operating in the linear region and is
unsaturated. This data is not public; but, I will get permission to send
it to anyone who cares to see it.
MJ: My conclusion from 1/ and 2/ is that the Sprain motor's COP, claimed
to be
overunity ~2, is in fact possibly 10 times and at least five times lower
than
that i.e. well below unity, due to an erroneous scaling of the input
current
waveform. I have no explanation as to the source of the error though.
TB: And I certainly understand your position regardless of your refusal to
accept the data. The inventor has actually operated the motor on a 14.5
volt supply without the FET in the circuit. The back EMF is at least 8 V
when triggered as indicated by the referenced data, which all refutes your
position. In addition, if 20 A at 20 V were being input to the coil, I
could feel the warmth of the coil with a 400 W input even at a duty cycle
of 3.7%. I feel no such warmth (from the coil).
What you do not understand is that we repealed Ohm's law here in Georgia in
1966. As a result we have saved a fortune on power costs. Near the same
time we rounded pi to exactly 3.0 which attracted many students to study
architecture at our universities.
Despite the s(c)eptics, we continue to try to get the motor to self-run.
The 3 phase alternator that Jones found on the web is only 50% efficient at
90 RPM. Paul has eliminated the FET from the circuit by using it to gate a
second coil which closes a magnetic reed switch to gate the motor coil.
This drops the voltage to a level near the alternator output.
Because the potential customer is coming tomorrow, I have asked Paul to put
the torque sensor back in place (removing the alternator) for the
demonstration; however, efforts to make it self-run will continue
afterward.
Terry
