Having gone back and read the 'blogspot', this is making even less sense. But have to admit I didn't wear my foil hat.

@ james31207, You seem to be saying that your spherical coil is rotating with your helical permanent magnets, that they are both connected to the "rotor" sphere. And you have electro magnets positioned around the sphere to make it rotate. If that is the case, just how are you going to get electrical power out of the 'sphere coil'? The onlymovung magnetic field involved, and it takes a magnetic field moving with a coil of wire to generate electric, is the electromagnets around the sphere.

Your helix of PMs is only making the sphere move, it isn't going to produce any power from them, AC or DC, since the PMs are moving with the coil. You may get some AC induced in the coil from the electromagnets, but that would be it.

 

james31207,
In your place, for experiment, I would use $10 Asco 27-475-1D Red-hat Solenoid Valve Coil 120v-dc for electromagnets, and $2.65 MOSFET bridge PWD13F60.
And, of course, power supply 120V DC, 3A max.

 

Unfortunately it is practically impossible to measure current or voltage generated by this device, because, according to Andersen Atkinson, these moving electrons do not interact with conductors, particularly in ammeters and voltmeters.
Absence of voltage and current is sign of normal functioning of device.
Useful link.

 

Absence of voltage and current is sign of normal functioning of device.

Well that certainly simplifies the design specs. I have a stone out in my yard not showing any voltage or current. Done!

 

Danko, one thing your missing in his 'experiment', he is using the rotor to both make it turn it's self and generate at the same time. But you are so right about using AC to create hydrogen and oxygen. Putting the results from doing it, with AC, is making a bomb in a bottle.

"A bomb in a bottle" is an interesting concept for portable energy. But typically electrolysing water also generates steam, which reduces the explosive hazard until the steam condenses. AND, though I have fairly good visualizing skills, I am still having a hard time imagining this device. And a much harder time than that imagining how it would produce any useful amount of power. But I still recommend that the thread starter read a text about transformer theory, as well as one on how generators work, and then re-evaluate the theory behind the proposed device once again.
In fact, an explanation of how any power is generated would be very useful, because that is a part that I do not understand.

 

Unfortunately it is practically impossible to measure current or voltage generated by this device, because, according to Andersen Atkinson, these moving electrons do not interact with conductors, particularly in ammeters and voltmeters.
Absence of voltage and current is sign of normal functioning of device.
Useful link.

If the components of power are impossible to measure tghen there is no power, at least no real power. And if some moving electrons do not interact with conductors then they are clearly not normally charged electrons. I am suspecting that the system utilizes dark energy, although that may be due to my lack of understanding.. Similar to not understanding how 120 amps can flow through a #24 wire.

 

And if some moving electrons do not interact with conductors then they are clearly not normally charged electrons.

It's my understanding that electron spin momentum is an inherent electron property, not externally acessible as an energy source. However, if electrons pass through a non-homogeneous magnetic field, those with 'up' spin will follow one trajectory and those with 'down' spin will follow a slightly different trajectory. I don't see this having any practical effect or advantage for the TS's gizmo though.

 

Exactly! So electron spin is just a physical part of what electrons are, not part of them moving in a conductor to do any useful work for "outsiders" such as external circuits. AND, that includes all electrons in all variety of atoms, not just those in conductors. Thus that somehow relates electrons to magnetism, although I am not sure that it relates to this thread.
I got that "you must wait 30 seconds warning again when I posted this one. I really wonder what that is all about. wait 30 seconds after doing WHAT??

 

wait 30 seconds after doing WHAT?

I think you get that warning if you inadvertently click 'Post reply' twice in quick succession.

 

I think you get that warning if you inadvertently click 'Post reply' twice in quick succession.

OK, that makes sense. I do have a problem with the left button on this mouse. It seems like contact bounce, but it may be a software issue. Thanks for the response, I would not have guessed that was the cause.

 

"A bomb in a bottle" is an interesting concept for portable energy. But typically electrolysing water also generates steam, which reduces the explosive hazard until the steam condenses. AND, though I have fairly good visualizing skills, I am still having a hard time imagining this device. And a much harder time than that imagining how it would produce any useful amount of power. But I still recommend that the thread starter read a text about transformer theory, as well as one on how generators work, and then re-evaluate the theory behind the proposed device once again.
In fact, an explanation of how any power is generated would be very useful, because that is a part that I do not understand.

When both hydrogen and oxygen in the gaseous form are together in one place, there if ignition takes place, is a large release of energy. This is the reason that you only use DC to make HHO or Brown's gas.

I'll give you what I use on threads like this, to interpret them, a meter that is very useful. When people use overly large words to try and explain their reasons for why something that defies common sense will work.

 

I was totally lost on how this thread morphed from switching the current direction in electromagnets, into making hydrogen by electrolysis. The posts where this was revealed were too long, and I generally don't read long posts.

Now I think I'm caught up. The central hypotheses seem to be that:

1) An AC waveform produced by some elaborate mechanical device is somehow different than an AC waveform produced by a signal generator, that somehow the current is different.
2) That the different waveform produced might be particularly efficient at hydrolyzing water.
​

There are plenty of theoretical bases on which to reject both hypotheses and I have seen no data to suggest a reason to not reject them. OK, I guess you could say the experiment is designed to collect those data. But difficult and costly experiments are usually only undertaken when a theoretical analysis has shown that there might be a chance of success. I see no chance whatsoever.

That's no reason to stop the experiment, as long as the TS proceeds safely with an understanding of the unlikeliness of success.

​

 

I was totally lost on how this thread morphed from switching the current direction in electromagnets, into making hydrogen by electrolysis. The posts where this was revealed were too long, and I generally don't read long posts.

Now I think I'm caught up. The central hypotheses seem to be that:

1) An AC waveform produced by some elaborate mechanical device is somehow different than an AC waveform produced by a signal generator, that somehow the current is different.
2) That the different waveform produced might be particularly efficient at hydrolyzing water.
​

There are plenty of theoretical bases on which to reject both hypotheses and I have seen no data to suggest a reason to not reject them. OK, I guess you could say the experiment is designed to collect those data. But difficult and costly experiments are usually only undertaken when a theoretical analysis has shown that there might be a chance of success. I see no chance whatsoever.

That's no reason to stop the experiment, as long as the TS proceeds safely with an understanding of the unlikeliness of success.

​

Very well put!

Much of what's claimed is well beyond my level of expertise, but I tend to agree a healthy bit of skepticism is in order.

Nevertheless, there's no reason not to experiment. There have been plenty of theories that sounded kooky and out-there until they were proven true, and plenty of discoveries made "accidentally," while testing unrelated theories. If there's a novel electrical arrangement to be tested, or even a novel way of testing a common electrical arrangement, there's no harm in trying it. Despite the long odds, there might be something to be learned (even if it's not the result that was expected.)

 

A 90A contactor set reversing more frequently than once every minute or so would probably drive you mad with the clatter . Have you checked out the price of contactors?

Sorry for the delay--I've been indisposed. Yes, I've basically decided to use H-Bridges with MOSFETs rated for 60 Amps plus; with a heat sink, and flyback diodes. I'm currently investigating where I might procure such a device; and might end up paying someone to build it locally.

 

Unfortunately it is practically impossible to measure current or voltage generated by this device, because, according to Andersen Atkinson, these moving electrons do not interact with conductors, particularly in ammeters and voltmeters.
Absence of voltage and current is sign of normal functioning of device.
Useful link.

I'm not sure what device you're talking about, but any output from this apparatus will be measurable. I have no idea, nor am I interested in what 'Atkinson [Anderson]' says or thinks, about anything; although I concede that the old story of the Emperor is always salutary for anyone considering the dedication of an entire life to the pursuit of illusion.

 

I was totally lost on how this thread morphed from switching the current direction in electromagnets, into making hydrogen by electrolysis. The posts where this was revealed were too long, and I generally don't read long posts.

Now I think I'm caught up. The central hypotheses seem to be that:

1) An AC waveform produced by some elaborate mechanical device is somehow different than an AC waveform produced by a signal generator, that somehow the current is different.
2) That the different waveform produced might be particularly efficient at hydrolyzing water.
​

There are plenty of theoretical bases on which to reject both hypotheses and I have seen no data to suggest a reason to not reject them. OK, I guess you could say the experiment is designed to collect those data. But difficult and costly experiments are usually only undertaken when a theoretical analysis has shown that there might be a chance of success. I see no chance whatsoever.

That's no reason to stop the experiment, as long as the TS proceeds safely with an understanding of the unlikeliness of success.

​

I understand only too well how unlikely the success of this experiment is; unfortunately, such doubts cannot be permitted to discourage one from proceeding--if only. Also, the apparatus is not really any more elaborate than a standard generator, nor is it expensive to construct. The poles (as of an ordinary AC generator) are just sub-divided, effectively into 12 surrounding stator coils, and the interior permanent magnets in their sphero-helical form, with which they interact. It is important to realise as well that the entirety of the winding--which is coil-like by virtue of 90 degree lapping, and progression etc.--is subject to the interaction of these magnetic field components at all times.

If you can indicate any theoretical objections, it would be interesting to hear them. There seems as well in other posts here to be some confusion about 1/2-integer intrinsic electron spin which, as abstract as its description may seem, is nonetheless a real physical property; of which account must be taken in any theoretical treatment of efficiency in any electrical device; and that such account has not to date been taken may reasonably be postulated as the basis for the inherent inefficiency of AC generators in particular--with respect to conductance over distance. Whether the form and configuration of this particular apparatus serves to clarify the issue remains to be seen.

 

It's my understanding that electron spin momentum is an inherent electron property, not externally acessible as an energy source. However, if electrons pass through a non-homogeneous magnetic field, those with 'up' spin will follow one trajectory and those with 'down' spin will follow a slightly different trajectory. I don't see this having any practical effect or advantage for the TS's gizmo though.

The potential advantage here is that, by virtue of the configuration of EM inductive relations intrinsic to the form of the apparatus, those following either trajectory in your image would be permitted to do so with greater facility, implying greater efficiency in the manipulation of the L orbital component which is eventually that part of electron angular momentum pertaining to the linear momentum in terms of which electrical energy is to be considered: it would be easier to push, and pull, (theoretical) 'electrons' around than in conventional generators in which magnetic force is being applied within narrow constraints. This is only a hypothesis though; which is why the apparatus is an 'experiment'.

 

The potential advantage here is that, by virtue of the configuration of EM inductive relations intrinsic to the form of the apparatus, those following either trajectory in your image would be permitted to do so with greater facility, implying greater efficiency in the manipulation of the L orbital component which is eventually that part of electron angular momentum pertaining to the linear momentum in terms of which electrical energy is to be considered: it would be easier to push, and pull, (theoretical) 'electrons' around than in conventional generators in which magnetic force is being applied within narrow constraints. This is only a hypothesis though; which is why the apparatus is an 'experiment'.

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

Typical copper electrons have a random thermal speed of hundred thousands of meters per second for a metal like copper with an average velocity of zero. The drift velocity of current electricity is the net velocity of electrons in a certain direction under an applied field. It's in the order of 2e-6 meters per second for a 10A current. Your hypothesis of quantum mechanical orbital angular momentum using Larmor precession seems unlikely at generator frequencies.

 

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

Typical copper electrons have a random thermal speed of hundred thousands of meters per second for a metal like copper with an average velocity of zero. The drift velocity of current electricity is the net velocity of electrons in a certain direction under an applied field. It's in the order of 2e-6 meters per second for a 10A current. Your hypothesis of quantum mechanical orbital angular momentum using Larmor precession seems unlikely at generator frequencies.

Quite possibly sir--but why do you need to be so puerile and nasty about it all? Eventually, the validity of any such hypothesis rests on the idea that the properties of 'theoretical electrons' under any conditions are only those of a real wave dynamic whose manipulation--ordinarily using magnets in which that dynamic is temporarily or 'permanently' distorted in a particular and characteristic way--accounts for electrical phenomena, such as AC induced in a copper medium. Those properties, most especially the basis of the oscillatory nature of that wave principle--described in QED-- require understanding at a more fundamental level than is possible using the descriptive approach of QED.

Really though, such a conception cannot ever be appreciated by habitual adherence to the same old-fashioned view of 'electrons' as little lumps of something (Hmm, now what could that be?) zipping around the place at unimaginable speeds, like fantastic sheep that must be whipped and herded about; rather than, for example, the convenient theoretical description in QED of that aspect of an entirely exclusive unitary universal wave principle whose behaviour merely conforms to such characterisation under instrumental observation. So, sure, go ahead and have another laugh if you must.

Mod Note: Personal abuse deleted.

 

RE:""I agree with Brevor. You are describing what an H-bridge does.""
The magnet switching is rather skewy thing, because (a) currents are drastically high and (b) voltages are very low. I had the similar problem with one six0turn magnet demanding 240A and 1 Volt, and in such standpoint any use of two igbt instead of one is nightmare if only one not willing to have a water-colled radiator.
Thus, in those situation I found an excellent solution by means of hip6391 plus hip6601. First is multiphase down-converter of voltage, thus I may use a 12V output from ordinary computer PS (I mean bold endian ATX) giving about 20-25 Amps. Converter uses four phases, thus my 240A are shifted in phases so that each igbt has only 60A to switch in average. Thus the need for radiators are diminished so much that every igbt heats only about N=i^2*Rdson=60^2*50mOhm=3.6*50=180W or radiator available for air-cooling under the fan.

In Your situation I believe the same circuit may be implemented, just two of such circuit, when one is off then other is on. At least this would give a twice smaller thermal flux against H-bridge, and allows to use an air-cooled radiators.

All the circuitry is well shown in the both datasheets, and certain (unipolar) implementation is well shown at danyk.cz/sniz2f_en.html.