Gary Vesperman wrote:
>
> (Stefan Hartmann has lately been reporting on his experiments with his
> version of Joseph Newman's motor.
>
> I am passing on Paul Jagnow's comments. Once again, energy conversion
ratios
> of electical motors are notoriously difficult to measure.
>
> Gary Vesperman
> vman@skylink.net )
>
> Gary,
>
> Stefan's message was interesting, but I would be cautious about drawing
> conclusions from oscilloscope waveforms that might be the result of
> amplifier saturation, ground currents, current loops, etc. Almost every
> engineer who has used a scope has drawn incorrect conclusions because of
> such things.
>
Yes, scope artifacts and amplifier saturation, ground currents, current
loops
must be very much cared about ...
> What Stefan describes sounds like normal kinds of reactions when coils
with
> significant winding capacitance are opened up while a current is flowing
> through them. The current in the coil must go somewhere as the magnetic
> field collapses. If the open circuit does not arc, it will "ring" at a
> frequency set by the inductance of the coil, and the distributed
> capacitance across it...until all the energy is dissipated in the
> resistance of the coil. If the inductance is rather large, and the
> distributed capacitance of the coil is rather small, the ringing voltage
> will be very large. I don't think that negative resistance is involved
> here, just conservation of energy and AC circuit theory.
If you just use a transistor to switch the circuit you are right.
It becomes completely different, when you use a spark gap.
Then it depends on the dynamically negative resistance of the spark what
happens.
>
> I suspect that the ampere meter (if it is a mechanical type) is reading
the
> average current correctly, and the scope is being overloaded and
displaying
> incorrect data. It is yet another reason why an over unity system with a
> well filtered DC input and output would be nice. It would be easy to take
> simultaneous input and output measurements, and there would be very little
> to go wrong. When AC is involved, especially at high frequencies, the
> measurements get very difficult, and the equipment gets expensive.
I agree completely.
>
> The observations made when pulling the electrode out of water might also
> make sense if one views the water as a variable resistor. It does not
open
> the circuit instantly. Instead it creates a high resistance in the form
of
> a very "lossy" arc which dissipates lots of energy, and prevents ringing.
> Since the length of time that the arc exists is very short, so there is
> virtually no mechanical effect on the torque of the motor. It's hard to
> get something to move at all in 10 microseconds.
Yes, but if these big 100 mikroseconds current spikes occur 60 times
per revolution of the magnet ( due to the commutator timing),
they will accelerate it ! :)
>
> Relative to the comments about: "...why Jean Louis Naudin had a faster
> spinning rotor, when he used "much negative current scope spikes" in his
> commutator setup". Large spikes might simply indicate that the commutator
> is opening the circuit when the currents are the largest...which might
well
> be the point at which the motor is getting the most energy.
>
No,
these are the high induction current spikes due to the sparking !
They are going indeed into the positive direction, and not into the
negative
direction as the scope displays them when the scope is saturated...
These current spikes accelerate the Magnet rotor !
So mechanical output can be bigger than electrical input.
> One needs to be very careful about what is being measured. Keep in mind
> that the simplest electrical model of any "real" coil is an inductor, with
> a capacitor connected in parallel. If the current is being monitored by
> reading the voltage across a small resistor in series with the coil, the
> negative current pulses could be flowing through the distributed
> capacitance of the coil, and not actually flowing through the coil
> windings. In such a case, the current pulses might flow through the
> measuring device, but not through the coils in the motor...so they will
> have very little effect on the magnetic field. If the pulses are very
> fast, it is likely that they are capacitively coupled...and not flowing
> through the inductance of the winding.
I can feel with my hand , that the current spikes generate additional
torque
onto the magnet rotor and help accelerate the rotor !
Also Dr. Hasting has verified this earlier in a technical report
he has written about the first Newman machine about 15 years ago.
>
> I did not understand the comment: "This is also why Newman never could
> show running the machine on a charged capacitor bank." It seems that a
> very large capacitor should look just like a battery. If the Newman motor
> had trouble with this, it might have been due to a resonance between the
> coil inductance of the motor, and the capacitors, or just the Equivalent
> Series Resistance (ESR) of the capacitors being somewhat higher than that
> of a battery. One would need to use low ESR capacitors of very high
value,
> so that the Q of the resonant circuit would be very low, less than 1, due
> to the resistance of the overall circuit. Then, it should work just like
a
> battery. (With a battery, LC resonances would not exist.)
I meant:
Newman could not show a selfrunning system just starting it with
using a charged capacitor bank.
If these "negative current spikes" were indeed this big as the scope
pics have shown it, the caps must have been recharged and
after a while overcharged and the cap voltage must rise
during the running of the motor and the motor must run thus faster
and faster, until it blows up or a bigger load is applied..
Unfortunately that was not yet achieved.
>
> Relative to the AquaFuel experiments. I suspect that the "large bubbles"
> are due to "water gas"...hydrogen and carbon monoxide that is generated
> when steam hits a hot carbon electrode.
What steam do you mean ?
It is completely running under water !
>Such gas, sometimes called "town
> gas", was used (long ago) in the US. It is created by running steam
> through hot, high quality, coal (basically pure carbon).
There is just no steam involved...
>Analysis of the
> gas bubbles would provide the answer. The output of such a process would
> be somewhat greater than that of electrolysis, because the steam produced
> by the carbon arc would combine with the carbon to become part of the
> resulting "fuel". That's the best guess from brother Al, the chemist.
It is hydrogen-oxygen gas, that is produced via the normal electrolysis
and when then the carbon electrodes are close enough together,
this gas "fuses" via the high current density spikes and the chemical
reaction takes place while the arc under water builds up,
so that the most part of the bigger bubbles contain COH2
gas.
Have a look at:
www.overunity.com/afuel
>
> Bottom line: With the limited info available, what Stefan has reported
> seems to fit well with the expectations of "normal" science.
Some yes, some not.
Regards, Stefan.
> Regards,
> Paul
--Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan HartmannKeplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, GermanyTel: ++ 49 30-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 49 30-345 00 498email: harti@harti.com Web site: http://www.harti.comhttp://ccard.net fuer Ihren Verkauf im WEB !