# Motor Generator Prototype with Circuit Shows Significant Power Gains (Allan Shura)

The following post has been submitted by Allan Shura

I became interested in new clean energy technologies in 2009 when reports that the US Navy had confirmed excess heat with cold fusion not long after physics professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in Japan made the first successful public media demonstration of cold fusion.

I was then interested in numerous claims about self looping generators providing excess power. I started experiments nearly 2 years ago and because I have had good results progressively I want to advance the project to the next level.

The motor generator prototype is a platform for the development of power generation and electrical products. I will start an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign during this week as a way for this technology breakthrough to move forward with the opportunity to become widely available.

This project is a DC permanent magnet motor configuration. The orientation and configuration of the motors induces magnetic and electrical oscillation for recapture of force and accelerates to capacitance of the prototype. Since easily available and widespread commonly available components are used in the device the IP could be described as an industrial process. The addition of a particular circuit results in an immediate large increase in power measurable by both instrumentation and physical observation.

There are several combined interactive forces in this dynamic system.

February 26 2017

This video explains the orientation of the permanent magnet motors at a power and voltage around 17 watts. These tool torque motors are oriented 90 degrees and accelerate under a limited constant supply of power from a lab grade DC power supply. The cycle is opposing or 90 degrees offset at a given instant in time.

This is the normal motor generator configuration except for the offset orientation of the motors and magnets in the motors.

Normally the foundational math would be consistent as the assumption is that the power would be drawn for a load from the non powered side or the generator side.

Large industrial units of DC motor generators are used to transform low DC voltage to higher DC voltage with the increased number of magnets and coils in the generator side of the large industrial transformer. In AC however the
usual solid state or core and wire coil transformer is used to raise the voltage.

The local area spacing between the two sides has a boosting magnetic or electromagnetic force along the armature shaft and in the open space between some of which is thought to be magnetic and also radio or frequency hertz communicative. At the zero point or shaft connection there is phase polarity interaction as hypothesized but not recorded yet in instrument research of this project.

The observable effect is acceleration beyond what would be usually seen.

That is usually angular momentum for some minutes dependent on the speed and mass ratio. Acceleration beyond the normal time and range of angular momentum for a motor would indicate more power being generated. Acceleration under a load under these conditions is not demonstrated by the foundational math probably due to a lack of variables considered.

The importance of the brush to armature angle and electromagnetic forces in the phase shift cycle of rotation is touched on in the mystery of the amplidyne videos for formative ideas theory and hypotheses.

Video: Renewable Energy Generator – voltage acceleration

May 14 2017

A live test and data is recorded. This configuration A 26.9 watt DC resistive bulb is used as a load. The configuration is the same as the previous video that showed an accelerative effect. This test shows the addition of a circuit that results in a
large increase in power in the dynamic system. The data is shown for the increase in power.

The data tests the difference in power for a 26.9 resistive watt light load:

1) without the electromechanical generator.
2) with the electromechanical generator
3) with the electromechanical generator and the wave regenerative circuit

The test showed both the digital power supply readings
and digital multi meter readings for power input independent of each other.

Findings:
There was a large increase in power with the added circuit.

There was much less than expected increase in the power input with a balanced bulb load added using the circuit. For example an apparent 18 watt bulb load under multi meter readings showed only a 3.6 watts increase in input power using the circuit together with the power generating system.

The data is shown first in the video and then the corrected data on the website:

http://www.shuraenergy.com/testdata.html

Video: Energy Generator Circuit Test

August 3 2017

This is a test to help resolve 2 parameters.

First the current limiting 6.75 watt AC to DC adapter is an alternate source of constant DC current as a control compared to the voltage regulation of the lab grade DC power supply used in the Video: Renewable Energy Generator – voltage acceleration toward the validation of power gain effects.

The effects of power gain if using the applied circuit at the lowest level of voltage and power for the system to run is tested.

Findings:

Using the AC adapter DC limited current input:

1) A single motor alone will not run on the power input but has a strong pulse.

2) Two 26 watt lights will glow and resonate at the low power three will barely blink without a constant glow.

3) The configured motor generator unit will not run on the power available.

4) Condition with the circuit added:
The configured motor generator runs and is able to glow two lights and maintain a higher than expected rotation and torque using the same limited DC power input of the adapter.

5) The results and observations show a net gain in power using the circuit using the same limited input of power supplied.

These are the observed results showing an increase in electro mechanical torque. A hypothesis could be regenerative amperage current standing square wave pulse oscillation and or other theories of interactions within the
system.

and on my You Tube channel:

• John Littlemist

E-catworld.com seems to be becoming another pesn.com, and I don’t like it… 🙁

• Billy Jackson

sometimes news is slow. these are just filler articles that people might find interesting so that we have something new to read during down times.

• Chapman

When I was younger, they used to show Bugs Bunny cartoons before the saturday afternoon Sci-Fi double-feature matinee.

“Bugs”, like Elmer and Daffy, was from “Looney Tunes” if I remember…

• Martin Lund

I agree. The posts have deteriorated quite a bit.

• Rene

Waiting for the electrogravitic posts to drop in.

• Happy to oblige.

• Zephir

No significant power gain is generated until we don’t see self-looped demo.

Not enough to draw any conclusion. An oscilloscope is needed to see what the waveform looks like, together with an understanding of how various the meters would interpret that.

• Albert D. Kallal

I mean us talking about an EM drive and flying cars but “leaving” out the fact that you need 4.5 million watts of power to lift one pound. That is a whole single 5 MW nuclear power plant – a massive system for one pound of lift?

No problem – lets leave out the issue of having an extra 5 million watts of power sitting around???

Now we have a self-looped motor – can things get any worse?

I think everyone needs to watch this video as to how a self-loop motor setup works. How it works is shown in this video:

In a way I tempted to NOT post the above and have a whole lot of fun mocking the galactically stupid that rains on the internet these days.

Shame on E-cat for carrying this article. However, perhaps the post is to encourage discussion, and thus help people to start thinking critically.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Frank Acland

Yes, Albert, everyone should think critically about things posted here. Yes, we cover LENR mostly here but sometimes there are other topics that I think worth bringing up. I have the luxury of being an independent publisher, and I don’t believe in being too scared to bring up topics that have merit, but that are considered taboo in the mainstream of journalism.

If Allan Shura is trying to trick us, then I hope we can uncover that. If he has made a mistake, I hope we can correct him. If he has discovered something novel, then I think it is a good to post about here.

• Albert D. Kallal

Fair enough – far too many motor driving a motor videos on you-tube. However, discussion is a good thing, and it allows people to ask, think, question – and that is MOST certainly what ECW is all about. I was always skeptical about orbo, but the posts and discussion was welcome and great for the ECW viewers.
We are here for free and open discussion – without such then we shut down the learning process.

In this light, I feel strong skepticism on my part is warranted, but I do apologize for use of the word “shame towards ECWs part). Your call in this regards is fair – time and discussion most often will “ferret” out such issues, and without that freedom of discussion then we become closed minded.
Keep up the good work here Frank – your efforts here are appreciated by all as we follow the LENR story.

Albert D. Kallal

• Frank Acland

Thanks Albert!

• Mylan

Frank, your site is important for LENR fans including me! Your the boss, but I also don’t think it is a good idea to post such stories. For me, such posts make it impossible to interest friends with at least some scientific background in LENR. While LENR is hard to imagine, no scientist can rule it out completely. But a perpetuum mobile… Such stuff really undermines the credibility of the whole site.

• Frank Acland

Thanks for your thoughts, Mylan. I understand your concerns. I have a slightly different perspective in that I am not averse to looking at potentially novel technologies outside of the LENR field, and I know that not all readers prefer that.

As far as the credibility of the site goes, we don’t have a great deal anyway since I, and some other readers here are convinced that the E-Cat is a real technology and Andrea Rossi is not lying about what he has. I think we are a small minority, but to me, that doesn’t matter, since I think there has to be a place on the wide web where such views can be presented.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I am not sure that Allan Shura here is claiming pereptuum mobile as most people think of it, but he has a claim that is unusual, and he has provided some documentary support in the article above in the form videos (even though he has not revealed all his IP). As I wrote above in my reply to Albert above — readers should use critical thinking in evaluating unusual claims. I don’t endorse what he has presented, but I think there have to be places on the web where people can present such claims, and where others can evaluate them.
To me, that is what scientific exploration is all about. If claims turn out to be wrong, then we are all the wiser; if they turn out to be correct, then we can all potentially benefit.

• georgehants

Albert, do you not find it a little worrying that so many people having seen the example of Cold Fusion and many other cases of the debunkers and deniers being wrong over the years who are still caught in that circle of behavior that forces them to continue in the same manner.
Perhaps you could explain the psychology of failing to learn, (is it a fear of the unknown for example) for all those people that find it a very simple lesson to absorb?

• Max Nozin

Allan, please simply show Albert that you do NOT have battery hidden in the setup.

• Allan Shura

I will show him and everyone but I want preliminary IP protection. The circuit will be shown and I doubt I could stop people from using the innovation for personal and off grid purposes. However for commercial purposes if this is to be implemented rapidly with scale I would like to have some oversight and I have ideas for the direction of testing and scaling. This takes resources and so it is a chicken and egg question. So I am starting an Idiegogo campaign within days so launch a start up.
Albert Kallal claims contribution to commercially sold books on databases and spreadsheets. I am not so sure he gave those copyrighted contributions free of charge and he knows full well that he cannot run his business and gone though time effort and training for free for a long time
without putting his name on it unless he is wealthy but he expects that from others.

Do you have an explanation as to why this device does not defeat the First Law of Thermodynamics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

• Allan Shura

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy is not a uniform mass it is transformational. In a closed system we have an input of a quantity of a type of energy that is electricity. The system transforms some of the energy to other forms resulting in losses such as heat. In this system there are electrical and magnetic forces. One does not generate electricity in a magnet motor without magnetism. The two energy forms oscillate with interaction in the vicinity of the system as well as within the system. Electricity can be converted to magnetism with a conductive coil as within a electromagnet or an excited coil motor. However that also uses input power even if it is less expensive to build to start with. Here the hypothesis we is that we are recapturing and combining the electrical wave form that is usually lost to the environment. We are doing this with the use of the regenerative circuit. A comparable effect might in the case of water if a disturbance cause a wave in a confined space and hits a wall there is some pushing back of the wave. If the wall is not there or level in a wave direction the wave diminished in the distance and does not go back to the confined space direction. Another example could be sound waves in an echo environment; the echo sound wave is heard again in the same location separated by time but not lost entirely from the source as an energy form. Tesla spoke of transverse longitudinal and standing waves. Standing waves are an equalization of opposing forces. I strongly suggest you take a look at the Keppe motor built around similar hypotheses. Yet this is not the whole picture entirely. Regardless of how an energy form transforms to electricity by magnet or static atmospheric friction or vibrational or chemical reaction the transformation only manifests at the sub atomic level and we are barely beginning to understand the mechanism. Recent experiments have shown visible evidence of antimatter for the first time. Current is generally shown as flowing by direction so what is negative electricity, a negative amp or back amp and negative current may not be direction of flow but could be the strength of sub atomic force density in and of electron interaction with what we might call the vacuum and some of that could also increase current at a point in time space. So in a closed system we lose energy to the environment and in an open system we account in the energy audit also for directional recapture of the time space diminishing waveform and cogeneration potential. In a universal definition energy is neither created nor destroyed irrespective of the form that it might be.

If you put this experiment in a Faraday cage would it still work?
A Faraday cage or Faraday shield is an enclosure used to block electromagnetic fields.

• Allan Shura

I have not tested this and this and need to organize some collaboration for the testing regimen.

• georgehants

Allan, it must always be remembered that science does not have clue regarding these subjects, 96% of the “know” energy in this reality is in a form dubbed, dark matter and dark energy that science does not even have a rough idea where it originates.
To continue to close ones eyes and make out that we inhabit a closed system without allowing for any amount of energy to be introduced from say another dimension, is science at it’s most closed-minded.
Thankfully there are a few people out there competent enough to realise that blindly following old outdated physics is silly.

• Allan Shura

In part that could be because we are told it has been done and accept that. Yet MIT thought they proved cold fusion was nothing 27 years ago and that is all the media picked up on. There was an Amoco oil study a couple years later in the early nineties but no they did not tell anyone. Now there is a frenzy to get an artificial intelligence to get the
researchers to think more logically and stick to the scientific method.

• Albert D. Kallal

But no one was claiming that some law of nature was being broken in regards to Pons and cold fusion. A witness and testimony that says some experiment does not work is no refutation of these laws. And no one was claiming over unity in regards to cold fusion either.

Marbles don’t roll up a hill on their own accord.

Objects can’t move themselves, and there no such thing as a random act in nature, nor an example of a object moving itself without a cause.

I am not aware of any energy source that ever broke any law of entropy.

It not a question of being skeptical, but we don’t have any example of the laws of nature ever
being broken.
Does the possibility exist of energy sources being tapped that we don’t know about? Sure it does, but in this context we don’t have any at all at this point in time.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Allan Shura

My guess is you have not kept up to date:

`”Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory believe that they’ve found a way to “locally circumvent” the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy in an isolated system must always increase over time.”

https://www.inverse.com/article/23219-argonne-entropy-maxwells-demon
Anyway some of the posters seem to think I have said I have stated breaking these physical laws where I have not either in the videos or in
commentary.
Once experts debated the number of angels on the head of a pin
so I should put these comments in that category.

• Albert D. Kallal

Oh, so they “claim” at some national lab and “believe” without any experiential demonstration that goes against entropy.

So they made a claim – how does that change anything?

That’s what you call a claim – not any kind of fact.

And no, I never stated you breaking any laws.

And you don’t need gears between the motors, but one side can have more wire windings then the other side – the result is increased voltage, but less amps. (Or the reverse)

And even if both motors have the same design and windings, then any electronics introduced that bumps up (or down) the voltage is again really no different than two mechanical gears.

So we talking about metaphorical gears here – and the laws of energy still apply 100% here. Why the need to introduce gears or motors between this magic source of energy?

So some increase of magic energy gain will have to be vetted and demonstrated beyond what you provided so far.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Allan Shura

Correct. Although there is a gain electrical power extracted with less measured input and by observation so far the main useful power
is the physical mechanical power. The torque increases quite a bit with the same limiting source input. The results get better at higher power levels of input but I have not gone above 105 watts with these particular motors as they could sustain excessive wear and damage. The manufacturer gives a life of 50 to 100 hours and the motors in the latest video are well beyond that. I have replacements of the exact lot the manufacturers say this lot was most likely part of a custom order build but they are some distance from my location now. Larger rugged motors have a much longer working span. At the higher power levels a the magnetic field does not collapse so much as it usually does in the ordinary manner of a straight draw under a load. We put a physical gear to maximise the increase in torque testing at the lower levels of power to avoid losses in conversion and so this is why I say a near practical application is for electric vehicles with little modification. We can only take a portion of the electrical power out so the magnetic field does not collapse so much at these lower levels of input. The logical progression is to scale up or try a parallel daisy chain of units. This is the R&D
direction I would like to see.

• Albert D. Kallal

quote:

say they might have discovered a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

so that is a big word called “might” have some loophole here – they are not making a claim – but a big huge ****if****.
So they are VERY much stating this is based on un-founded speculation. They are at the idea stage.

Answer: Well, if the house has wings, then yes?

answer: Well ******if***** the house has wings, then yes!!!

The problem of course is that houses don’t have wings, and therefore by logic they don’t fly.

They are making a in-founded and in-proven assumption they can build some kind of gate that prevents flow of energy in a given direction. So if you accept that this magical un known and un proven *****if***** exists, then the rest of a paper on this idea can be credible but ONLY based on that big *****if***** assumption.

So we can read a paper on flying houses, but we have to accept he idea that houses have wings when they don’t to entertain such a paper.

As I stated, that paper is PURE speculation based on a huge ****if**** that not been found to exist at this point in time.

Regards,

Albert D. Kallal

• Allan Shura

Researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory believe that as you asked for a pointer to collaborative theory.

• georgehants

Thank you Albert, all agreed and your last sentence is what brings your reply in line with logical scientific principles, that if not followed makes science a joke.
Just a small example, nobody on the lava-flow page can explain, with certainty, the excess heat from that, Jupiter or the Sun, as you say every chance that a conventional explanation will be found, but to close ones mind to the possibility, as with any anomaly, of a reincarnated Einstein showing a completely new physics is scientifically incompetent.
Science does not “know” it just thinks it “knows”

• Albert D. Kallal

@georgehans,
Well in regards to the sun, that heat is rather likely some kind of fusion. However, there are some rather recent and credible articles that state the sun is not a big ball of
gas, but the nuclear reaction is occurring in a form of metal hydrogen. I think
this “idea” is VERY significant, since it suggest a different path for fusion.

A path that involves a metal lattice loaded with a gas (exactly what LENR
does). Thus it is ironic that the idea of how the sun works is poised to
change, but more incredible that this new theory of the sun falls “much” in
line with the ideas in regards to LENR.

As for heat from planets? Well, there still not quite a consensus in regards to how the earth’s
core stays so hot. And again we see some suggesting that the heat is due to
some type of nuclear reaction – and again this points to LENR like process.

The science community is slow to change – and LENR not yet mainstream accepted. However, with the rise of several LENR companies, more information flow on the web, then the LENR story continues to gain acceptance in the general science community.

There is tons of credible evidence for LENR. In the case of Rossi, we simply don’t yet have enough proof to know if Rossi has obtained “high” output LENR.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• georgehants

Morning Albert, all agreed, it will be a Wonderful and necessary advance when main-line science and many others, wake-up and open their minds to all possibilities, without having half-wit qualified experts telling our students etc. what is possible and what is not, when a moments scientific logical thought shows they are in most cases, giving nothing but half-baked opinionated rubbish.

• “Here the hypothesis we is that we are recapturing and combining the electrical wave form that is usually lost to the environment. We are doing this with the use of the regenerative circuit. ”
***What you might have there is a way to harness the coupling of gravity with electricity as found by Thomas Townsend Brown in the 1920’s. It is a small effect but it is proportional to Voltage, which is why you don’t see it in small Voltage systems. A motor that harnesses this effect will be more efficient than a motor that doesn’t, but no energy is “created nor destroyed”.

• Allan Shura

I think these theories can be applied to different devices or innovations, the theory may be
the same the devices can be engineered differently. More testing R&D is needed but I
am not prrepared to wait until 2120.

• TVulgaris

I have a much simpler hypothesis, that could be falsified easily in a magnetically-shielded Faraday cage- these systems (the ones that actually work are inevitably low power-density) pretty much are abstracting energy from the ambient dynamic magnetic field, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen someone try that.
Any physicist who will state that you can’t abstract energy out of “the Earth’s magnetic field” is basing that claim on a static field, which is demonstrably false, a straw-man- but I really wonder why none of the alternative-energy developers don’t look at that; Tesla certainly would have (actually, I think he did…)

• Gerard McEk

Just show us that the system can run continuously and for ever and then many will take a closer look. What you are saying above is just speculation. There is no evidence that the effects that you describe actually exist, let alone that you can create a perpetual motion with it..

• Allan Shura

There is input power. It cannot run forever there needs to be maintenance and replacement
over time. Solar panels run for decades but even they degrade over time as does any dielectric material known.

• TVulgaris

It can’t run forever, all the materials will wear and degrade. Poor word choice in raising objections to this don’t help the discussion.

• Albert D. Kallal

You have every right to protect your work – and should do so!

I don’t claim there is necessary a hidden power source, but only the tons of examples that without a doubt have a hidden power source.

If you take a simple set of two motors tied together with a 1 to 10 gear ratio, and put in 1 volt to the first motor, then you can get 10 volts out on the second motor (or close). However, those volts will have no amps. Your resulting energy is the same.

So be it gears, or two motors – they quite much work the same – there is no free lunch here and introducing electricity into this simple mix will not change your available energy.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Allan Shura

Albert
The videos show amps by the power supply, by multi meter and by
analog.
The available energy can be tested using a DC motor generating
torque testing apparatus.

• Steve D

Voltage acceleration? Maybe try a voltage step up transformer if that what’s needed? (We’ll overlook the power gain requirement). It has no moving parts.
Speaking of moving parts and also of dubious technologies, try this resurrection of the gravity motor. It has made a few appearances in ECW in the past. Some serious money has been spent here. Here’s the link, but the (next) link to RAR energia doesn’t work anymore. How embarrassing!

http://e-catworld.com/2013/09/28/brazilian-company-building-claimed-gravity-engine/

To avoid disappointment here is an archived copy of the site.

• Allan Shura

For AC current the solid state transformer works but the information I have from
educators stepping up voltage from the number of wraps does not work very well
for DC. There may be traces of AC in the system but initially it appears not much.
Also the conventional thought is that although the voltage is stepped up in a solid state transformer there is little or no power gain in wattage with this method. This is a square wave DC dynamic interactive physical system. Good for a test as time permits but that is the consensus I have so far encountered. It seems AC is a frequency economical and
conditioned for distance distribution and generally rectified to DC as required at the destination for example such as in computer boards. Ironically solar systems often have another conversion to invert to AC because of the lack of everyday DC appliances. I will check the links to refresh on the RAR energia group.

• TVulgaris

It’s nothing ironic at all, the lack of supercondunductive wire being commonly available means wire losses (and resistive hot spots) in DC systems for any significant cable runs either become prohibitive, or demand lots of cross-sectional area for your power buses, and consequently chew up a larger portion of the project budget than justifiable.

• Chapman

Not with a ten foot pole…

You know what that little twig is that you see laying there on the floor? That is the STRAW that broke the camel’s back. Well, call me “Camel”.

This is just too much for my chlorthalidone to combat!

I am going to go out and fill my VW’s gas tank from my garden hose and drive myself to the ER before I stroke out…

• georgehants

Morning Chapman, calm down and do what most scientists do when they feel like you, sit quietly and keep repeating to yourself the Earth is flat, the Earth is flat, you will soon feel better.

• Albert D. Kallal

Well, the problem is not low output but that of no more output then just placing a light bulb in the center of a pie tin. Nothing so far has shown anything that generates forces beyond what we known about for about 100 years. I just think talking about forces that have trouble lifting one grain of sand and then talking about flying cars is really stretching things at this point in time.

So sure, talk about lifting one grain of sand, but with a system that converts 99% of the energy to heat, then in the same context then talking about flying cars is VERY irresponsible.

Context is important – and I think the inventor is wildly making miss-leading statements – that’s a huge red flag.

When scientists discovered uranium MANY scoffed at the idea of heat being produced without “burning or combustion”. This was considered impossible (heat without combustion).

When such people “finally” had to admit they were wrong, then they said that the effect will never be of any practical use and is just a lab curiosity. Nothing to see here, move along!

Less than 50 years later we saw working nuclear reactors.

So I grasp the concept of new ideas, but there are limits.

There is nothing that suggests the EM drive will scale up in the force it produces, and we not even sure the force is anything new at this point in time.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Gerard McEk

I assume that almost everybody on this site is aware of the thermodynamic laws. It is not possible to generate energy in a close looped system, ….. inpossible! Allan hasn’t shown a self looped motor/generator yet and I am sure he will never succeed, so don’t donate any money. Perpetuum mobile will not work. Some systems like that pick up energy from the surroundings and use that. That energy can be light, EM waves, heat or work on temperature- and pressure differences, etc.. Allan’s system doesn’t even hint to this. Zero point Energy? Even that isn’t mentioned and also then I would be extremely sceptic.

• Allan Shura

See the reply to give a dog a bone below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transfer
“Wireless power transfer” is a collective term that refers to a number of different technologies for transmitting energy by means of electromagnetic fields.

Has this got anything to do with the energy collection?

• Allan Shura

There is no receiver like antenna attached.

• TVulgaris

ANY piece of metal can act as an antenna to some characteristic bandwidth- particularly in the vicinity of coils of wire…

• georgehants

Gerard, did you mean to write that, sciences “opinion” is that as a working model the
thermodynamic laws, hold, but nobody knows if they will at some point be tossed in the rubbish bin like Newtons gravity etc.

• Gerard McEk

At the moment that any physical law is violated, scientists must revisit the basics of the law. As long and it is not violated, then this law must be assumed correct.
Science is so desperately insisting that the law is right and that the one who says that something is not right should be silenced, because science has build their whole cardcastle on these laws. When one card is pulled, their castle may be dismolished. The reputation of thousands of scientists may be ruined.

• georgehants

Morning Gerard, so right and what a sad situation to see in a profession that is so important to the World.
It would seem that a complete change in our education systems is needed.

• William D. Fleming

As a sceptic I will store this information in a remote place in memory and await further evidence.

• CWatters

In the first video above the power supply is operated close to its 5A current limit so no surprise that the voltage fluctuates a bit and the motor speed changes. I see nothing unusual in that video at all.

• CWatters

The second video is very confusing but again he appears to be operating the bench supply in current limiting mode. He sets the voltage to 17V and the current limit to about 3A. The voltage falls dramatically when the motor is connected because the current exceeds 3A. Again I see nothing unusual going on.

He then appears to connect a bulb in parallel with the powered motor. (Eg not to the generator motor). The increased current draw causes the bench supply to reduce the voltage even further and the motor slows right down. Again I see nothing unusual going on.

At this point he connects or turns on his unspecified circuit. This appears to fool the current limit in the power supply into turning up the voltage and the light glows brightly. Again I see nothing unusual going on.

In short I believe he’s being fooled by the current limit on his power supply. On many bench supplies the current limiter is only meant as a protection device. You aren’t meant to use it in that mode for very long due to over heating and you can get strange effects.

• Allan Shura

The acceleration effect should be quantified with other testing and power supplies.

There is the overlay of the angular momentum and centrifugal force in mechanical
power. There also appears to be a threshold power level for the acceleration effect
in the test.

The voltage does not rise with the bulb resistive load alone as a control using the power supply.

The other control load where the voltage does not rise as a mechanical load using
a 12 volt motor with the same power supply over time is posted.

http://shuraenergy.com/testdata.html

So either mechanical or resistive the voltage did not rise without the unit using
the same power supply.

• Allan Shura

Why don`t they? Electric motor engineers and inventors use such terms often. Particularly when they are concerned with moment, size, angle and phase shift when a coil pole of an armature crosses into a neutral angle of phase after magnet in a rotating electric motor. I have known such terms since elementary. It relates to the tendency of motion and inertia once an object is in motion it tends to stay in motion and once at rest it tends to stay at rest. The 12 volt test of the motor alone showed ordinary angular momentum about up to the 20 minute mark, when the power is shut off to an electric motor it winds down with no power input at the time the residual being from the remaining kinetic motion of angular momentum.

Angular momentum:
The quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity.

Centrifugal force:
An apparent force that acts outward on a body moving around a center, arising from the body’s inertia.
The input is electricity, the energy transformation takes many forms.
Momentum is normal in electric motors and any excess acceleration beyond normal
momentum should be acceleration under a load.
In reference to the previous comment that the circuitry was not fooled by an ordinary light or a single motor but appears allegedly fooled by a simple motor generator
arrangement, note there are input watts and output watts independently
recorded, that tests were also performed with and external diode for power not to flow back.
Disregarding the acceleration effect the circuit works to increase available power of an input regardless of the input DC type of supply (power, adapter, battery, etc.).
In any case if you disregard the digital and analog readings of the instruments there is
the torque test machine that does not listen to these instruments we use either and this is part of the reason to continue moving forward to research this innovation.

• Allan Shura

Loads can be connected to the left but it appeared that the power was slightly lower on the left, not very much lower perhaps a percent
or two. The output on the left is still very close to the output at the right junction. I have not been yet able to determine the exact reason the output is a hair lower on the left side yet but it is not a problem. I think the circuit might be a bit higher on the right with some of the recapture or electrons may become more energized locally where the input meets the cycled output. That is the hypothesis but a specific test of that observation has not been done yet.

• Allan, how does your device differ from this one:

In the “BACKGROUND” section we find: With the increasing demand for electrical power in industrial, commercial and residential applications, the present electrical power services have become over taxed due to the growing demands. The present invention will assist in relieving those generation systems and give the industrial, commercial and residential sectors, and the individual, a viable energy source alternative.

• vibrator !

The motor windings heat up after a while, especially when under load, or stopped, as in the initial starting condition when power is applied before the motor is hand-started.

The resistance of a conductor increases as it heats up.

The heat here is produced by the resistance itself, per Joule’s 2nd law for heat, Q=I^2RT.

Ohm’s law tells us that V=IR, I=R/V and R=V/I.

So as DC current flows through the windings, they heat up. The longer they’re live, the more heat is generated.

And as temperature goes up, so does resistance, which means that all else being equal, current and voltage would decrease.

Except here you’re using a regulated PSU, which automatically compensates for this changing resistance, raising the voltage in order to maintain the amperage you’ve selected.

As a result, temperature increases even higher, and thus, so does resistance, and hence, so must voltage in order to sustain amperage.

But as input energy climbs ever higher, the ratio of output mechanical work to direct Joule heating decreases, ie. efficiency goes down.

Using a 2nd motor as an applied load is superfluous – any load would do, such as a friction brake – but either way the angle between them there is 180° not 90°!

If you want to calculate the rotational kinetic energy (RKE) – which is your basic mechanical output energy of interest here – find some kind of flywheel you can spin up. A heavy disk or ring is ideal since it’s easy to calculate their moment of inertia (MoI). RKE = 1/2MoI * RPM^2, in other words you can measure mechanical energy as MoI * RPM. Laser tachos are cheap on ebay, alternatively many smartphones have 60Hz video recording so you can monitor accelerations frame-by-frame with timestamps..

You can measure the resistance of your motors across their terminals, and thus knowing the input current and time you have the input energy (1 Joule = 1 Amp * 1 Ohm * 1 sec).

Subtract the former from the latter and you have your heat energy, and mechanical efficiency.

There is nothing remotely anomalous here!

• Allan Shura

You have some valid considerations to parse. The manual for the PSU says “It can be used both as a constant voltage and constant current DC power supply. What`s more its constant voltage and constant current mode can be automatic conversion. It is widely used in LED testing and aging motor manufacturing, PCB manufacturing, battery, DC fan etc. It is the first choice for school, laboratory and production line.” Still other power supplies and sources should be tested to ensure the PSU is not anomalous. In the low power AC to DC adapter test, the power in watts is definitely limited to a maximum specified at 6.75 watts.

The second effect of the increase in power using the (not shown) circuit (until patent or IP) shows a large increase in power. The 6.75 watt adapter does not have enough output even to start running one of the motors; with the circuit it runs both motors plus puts a glow in 2 of the bulbs. There are other you tube videos that define the 2nd motor (a generator) as a load so this is semantic. There is a point for the 2nd motor.

If you look at the amplidyne when we modify an ordinary DC motor to make one; the angles of the magnets and brushes are redirected 90° geometry in the rotating magnetic field the shorted brushed do not burn up.

What do you think of cold electricity and superconducting graphene with heat?

With a battery there is a burst of power with the circuit not seen without the circuit. I have to
test this more for the draw over time and also with a potentiometer.

The build was keeping in mind the amplidyne and an innovation following that; the metadyne
if that helps, but this device is somewhat different I would say at this time.

“the equipment was fitted to three battery locomotives[20] built by the Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company, which were part of a batch of nine vehicles supplied between 1936 and 1938. The equipment was particularly suitable for battery locomotives, as the lack of starting resistances reduced the amount of power wasted when starting”

• Allan Shura

Look it up Jim the power factor is for AC not DC.

• You are going to ignore the issues raised? Fine. So much like Rosemary Ainslie.

• Allan Shura

OK I will look it up for you:
The ratio of the actual electrical power dissipated by an AC circuit to the product of the r.m.s. values of current and voltage. The difference between the two is caused by reactance in the circuit and represents power that does no useful work.
This issue does not apply to DC!
There were other suggestions on this thread that obviously do not apply
seemingly to confuse such as using step up transformer when it applies
to AC current!
Duty cycle is usually time on or time off in a circuit and very rarely to
the waveform you did not specify but there very obviously is no time
on time off cycle to the power applied at input.
Why should I pay attention to the irrelevant in this project?

• Allan Shura

I do not know which test you are referring to. The August test of the AC adapter
shows the input at the source and the output to the load on the right measured
in line to the bulb.
For the earlier acceleration under a load video I only measured the input power. This was to avoid an even more complicated longer video. The potential is the same with and without the circuit no dials are turned up the between the two. Yet by multi meter
the bulb is bright with the unit and circuit and added consumption is only about 3.6 watts. The control test of the bulb at the same potential without the unit consumes
18.6 watts. If I put 3.6 watts in to this bulb alone it is dim. The next video uses the AC adapter at a constant 6.75 watts also as a control straight to the bulb. Even at 6.75 watts the bulb is much dimmer. The total input power with the unit at that power level should have increase by around 18 watts but only increased 3.6 watts. If I put 3.6 watts to the bulb alone it is dim. Not perfectly precise but obviously observable the difference is that much.

• Allan Shura

I only need to know what I know. Power is the work performed and that will be settled once and for all with torque testing apparatus available for test labs. This torque
test over time removes the doubt about using standard digital measuring devices at various points in the circuit network since it is a physical test of work related to the input. This is not to say a test using the instruments you suggest would also help
analyze in another way.

• Allan Shura: “I only need to know what I know.”

Sades of Joseph Newman. He appears in a number of YouTube videos. He had the same mindset.

He wasn’t dealing with reality either …

• Allan Shura

So then the reality is NI DAQ card and LabView versus a classical physical torque test. If they both have the same result that is the reality. If not then one or both are not the reality.

• Allan Shura

It would take a bit of time to look over that patent. There looks to be a number of add-on
devices in the circuit. I wonder what is meant by the statement of a viable source alternative.
It appears to be intended for some battery storage of the output and uses the word regenerative and seems from a glance to be purposed toward gaining efficiency toward balancing a variable load requirement. If it gives all sectors including the individual an
economical energy source then good. The patent is 2014 are there any of these that an
individual can buy on the market for consumer home use? I want to make personal
use within limits open but have IP for commercial and industrial purposes. The
competitive nature would be the cost advantage over existing sources and applications.

• Allan, do you own, or can you borrow, a dynamic observation device otherwise known as an oscilloscope?

• Allan Shura

No I do not own one. I asked Innovate Calgary of U of C and B.C.I.T. to assess the technology
for IP partnership. They are only interested in \$\$\$ and fee for service and lagged far past timelines
with formal requests. There is nothing preventing them from making a serious analysis and
they regularly do business with their own subsidized research. So I am crowd funding to buy lab
equipment and hire test labs and incorporate because it appears every research program fund matching Canada only allows companies not partnerships or proprietors to qualify.

• CWatters

I’ve now had time to review the last video. The data contained in the video suggests that the
AC adaptor is delivering 4.26V (see video at 14min 3sec) at about 2A (12min 41sec) which works out at 4.26 * 2 = 8.52W. The output/load is getting 1.81V (14min 37sec) at the same current which is 1.81 * 2A = 3.62W. So the efficiency in % appears to be about 100 * 3.62/8.52 = 43%. On that basis I see no evidence that it’s generating energy.

• Allan Shura

Used normally it would generate no useable mechanical power period at this minimal power level
without the added circuit the video shows this.
This adapter limits the current to a 6.75 watt maximum. We need to see if there is resonating current in future testing there is 8.52 watts in the system using the added circuit. The evidence that it generating energy is that you have the same control loads with the same adapter supplying the same maximum power. The same input limited to 6.75 watts without the added circuit will not even supply enough to start a single motor. It is elementary reasoning to say a two motor load is twice the input in this configuration. Adding the circuit the same power supplied not only powers 2 motors it also supplies power to glow 2 of the bulbs measuring the 3.52 watts on top of that.
That is very clear in the video.
There is both useable mechanical and electrical power in this system in its first prototype and that as at a very minimum input used in fact too low even to run one motor the usual way. Also shown.
For pure useable mechanical torque energy in watts: Since the 6.75 watt maximum input will not even provide continuous rotation it could be said there is zero mechanical watts delivered normally. The difference is the entire torque and a force acting against that torque uses less power (IE a mechanical load could also be road or friction load on the axis instead of a bulb)
then use far less extra input should than without the circuit. This has been gone through and
over again.

• CWatters

Re: “This adapter limits the current to a 6.75 watt maximum”

Nonsense. You even state in the video (at 10min 48sec) that “on the lights it can take out as much as 8W”.

Re “Adding the circuit the same power supplied not only powers 2 motors it also supplies power to glow 2 of the bulbs measuring the 3.62 watts on top of that. That is very clear in the video.”

It’s also very clear from your own measurements that the power is not the same 6.75W. Your measurements show that the power delivered by the adaptor is 8.52W and that the power going into the motor and lamps is 3.62W. Your circuit is actually wasting the difference!

• Allan Shura

There are two issues around that.

Firstly the hypothesis is that of a standing wave DC current , in a transverse waveform as theorized by Tesla. I and other inventors have to think a little more deeply if we are to make any progress and get anywhere. The hypothesis researches the formation of the current or the source of the current generation. Seriously I do not have the space to write a thesis in this discussion.

We have to hypothesize a model where current is formed not only with the force of the brush interacting with the magnet but that additional current can also be formed in a standing wave
and that current can flow in both directions. I will not go deeper there is plenty of material on the subject and recent findings that reinforce these theoretical models.

Secondly some posters have strongly suggested the oscillation is fooling lab grade digital circuitry.

The AC adapters used have worked very well and they do limit the power and are a another alternative to the lab grade power supply. If it takes a microsecond for the peak pulse to limit
the current because it is a digital electronic instead of analog the difference supports the
hypothesis of the possibility of a transverse standing wave. It will cut out the instant the power is 6.75 watts. Note also that two bulbs alone will blink if separated seeing the peak pulse. When the two bulbs were tickled at a certain time on the negative both bulbs glowed, I said resonance, to clarify now more to the theory, that the waveform is not entirely lost in one direction but some bounces in the negative between the two bulbs causing them to glow constantly. You simply cannot get them to glow constantly as two separate bulbs with the limitation of the input current they will blink at the peak pulse.

As I pointed out in the last answer this is the first prototype, and we can scale and refine if your goal is pure electrical output. If we use an electric motor and supply only electrical current as
input that circuit has a real world useful application for the power.

Your wasted nonsense is what drives our can openers and electric cars.

Re. you stated:
” I’m an electronics engineer and a Science Advisor on a Physics forum.” What Physics forum is that?

I said:

“There is both useable mechanical and electrical power in this system in its first prototype and that as at a very minimum input used in fact too low even to run one motor the usual way. Also shown.”

• CWatters

When the coil is open it’s producing a high voltage and there is a leakage/ ionisation current (he reports smelling ozone). So there is a power output = coil voltage * current.

When the coil is shorted it’s output voltage falls to zero so the output power also falls to zero.

So shorting the coil reduces the output power and hence you would expect the input power to reduce as well. The puzzle is why this only happens with the bifilar coil. Perhaps the other coil is better insulated so there is less leakage/ionisation current ?

It would be much better if he used coils with fewer turns and hence lower voltages so that accurate measurement of the output power into load resistors can be made. Meanwhile I don’t see anything special going on here either.