 |
There are currently, 100 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Minato Report by ISSO April 2000 (Score: 1)
by Overtone on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 @ 15:41:41 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.magneticpowerinc.com | International Space Sciences Organization
Report On The Minato Motor - Magnetic Rotation Apparatus
On April 17-21 2000 the science research team tested and examined the Minato Motor for it’s purported over unity energy generation capacity.
We tested this device and found that, according to our best scientific assesment, it did not generate any excess electricity over the input contrary to the claims of its inventor and reports by groups such as
Toyoya, Hokaido Electric Power Co. We took a series of measurements primarily of input current and voltage and of output current and voltage. Using the standard and generally accepted method of calculating the total power output we computed the
output and found it to be significantly less than the input.
Upon inspecting the over unity figures Minato had given us for his motors such as 240% 283% etc., we determined that these figures were arrived at using exactly the same input values as we had used but plugged into a different equation and thereby giving different, and in our opinion incorrect, output values.
Since our measurements of current and voltage on the input side and on the output side are in agreement with those of Mr. Minato, the basic issue at hand is how to correctly calculate the power output.
Since the volt and amp meters attached to the output terminals do not read output power directly, we need to rely on time honored methods of calculating the total output power. The standard method found in all basic electronics textbooks is: to determine the accurate total power output from a circuit one needs to integrate the product of the current and voltage at each point in time, and then average it. This method takes into account that current and voltage are time varying waveforms and that the product of current and voltage must take into account that only superposition of current and voltage waveforms truly represents the net power output.
The simple eq.
Power = Volts X Amps
can be easily misinterpreted to mean that current and voltage are just linear terms that are multiplied directly to give power without taking into account the all important phase relationship between them. Our method was careful to not make this mistake and also to integrate the product of current and voltage at each point in the time over the interval of measurement.
This was the analytical method used. From the measured values and explanation below it is clear to see how we derived an output figure that was decidedly under 100% of input power.
Device Data and Evaluation Data Tables from the Minato Event
Two devices were evaluated as to their design characteristics and input and output power parameters on April 19 and 20, 2000.
All measurements were performed by Creon Levit, ISSO Chief Scientist, and John Ellison, ISSO Carl Sagan Memorial Device Evaluation Laboratory Manager.
The measurements were done in the ISSO Lab at 3220 Sacramento St, San Francisco, CA, USA, Terra (Sol III)
Measurements were taken with 3 different instruments: a Fluke Model 123 2-channel Digital Sampling Oscilloscope (F123), a Fluke 83 Digital Multimeter (F83),
and a Hioki 8841 (H8841) digital recording multichannel oscilloscope/power meter provided and operated by Minato. Some measurements were also
cross-checked on a Simpson analog multimeter, which was in substantial agreement with the digital instruments. The F123 has traceable calibration.
Tachometry and duty cycle measurements were done with the F83 and crosschecked with Minato's optical tachometer, the F123 and the H8841.
Most current measurements on the F123 were taken using the Fluke's clamp-on current probe and a special shunt constructed to provide a stable measurement
zone for the probe, away from apparatus fields. The F83 and Hioki current readings were taken in-line.
While neither the F123 or the F83 were capable of TRUE rms power measurements, such capability was not needed, as the DC square-wave drive pulse and
timing measurements provided unequivocal data for manual power computation.
The Minato devices consisted of 2 main stages: an electromotive (EM) stage incorporating Minato's patented magnet angle technology,
and a generator (G) stage using a standard configuration of one or more radially oriented magnet poles sweeping tangentially
past one or more fixed, radially-oriented iron-core coils. Very strong thin flat rectangular magnets were used in all stages of both devices.
The magnets in the EM stages had poles on the long, narrow sides rather than on the faces or ends.
The magnets in the G stages had poles on the large flat faces, but otherwise appeared identical to the EM magnets
except in mounting configuration; the EM stage magnets were edge-on at the patented angle, all oriented in the same sense polewise,
while the G stage magnets were oriented with the large flat surfaces facing radially outward, and with alternating sense.
Exact size, material, and field strength of these magnets are unknown, but they appear similar to examples that we have in stock.
In addition, each device incorporated a pulsed DC power supply, optically commutated, to drive the EM stage,
and a fullwave bridge rectifier and filter capacitors to convert the AC generated by the G stage into relatively smooth DC.
Large Machine
The larger of the two machines (LM) utilized 8 driving coils in the EM stage, driving a multimagnet rotor which was coupled to a laminated brass flywheel
about 50 cm in diameter and massing about 25 kilograms (not measured; mass and diameter from personal communication, Murakami).
The G stage of this device used 2 coils horizontally opposed. Loads were provided in the form of a light bulb (LB in tables) or a 25 watt wirewound
rheostat (WW in tables). The resistance of each of these loads was measured (F83) at operating temperature during the evaluations.
No attempt was made to feed the G stage output power to the input of either device, although such a self-exciting device had been promised.
The EM stage was commutated so as to pulse each opposed pair of drive coils simultaneously, so each of the eight coils was actually pulsed twice
per revolution of the device. The driving coils act to repel the nearby poles of the magnets embedded in the rotor, instead of attracting
as in a conventional DC motor. This configuration produces an impressively fast spin-up and high torque, although these parameters
were not directly measured by the ISSO team.
The EM and G stages and the flywheel were all coaxial. No gearing was used, but standard flex couplings were used on the driveshafts between stages.
The housings of the device were made of clear acrylic plastic sheet, and the rotors holding the magnets for the EM and G stages appeared to be
made of solid machined aluminum with milled slots or channels for the magnets, which were held in place by adhesive (probably filled epoxy).
The circuitry for the rectifier was completely open to view and was totally standard. At our request, the commutation circuitry enclosure was opened
for examination, and appeared to be a standard MOSFET power switching design, with timing pulses
provided by 555 timers in monostable mode triggered by IR LED-phototransistor pairs looking at a coaxial commutator of clear plastic with
black electrical tape defining sectors. Standard 1N914 switching rectifier diodes were used in series with and across each drive coil to shunt
induced currents away from the MOSFETS. No additional inductances or capacitances were used in the drive circuitry.
This type of design generally produces a fairly good square wave output at low frequencies, and this was confirmed by digital storage oscilloscope (F123)
measurements during the evaluation.
Power to the commutation circuit, and hence to the drive coils, was provided by a separate commercial stand-alone regulated DC power supply
set for CV operation at 25 volts, and this power supply was powered by the building AC mains at ~117VAC.
This LM looked impressive, with big aluminum and brass rotors and flywheel, finely machined, and it ran smoothly and quietly with a good amount of
braking torque (measured by the "grab-the-shaft" method). Obviously a well-travelled and mature design.
Data from the 2 evaluation sessions of the LM are presented in Table 1, top right.
Small Machine
The small machine was of similar design and construction, but obviously a prototype, much cruder than the LM. A small (ca. 10 cm ) magnet rotor was driven
by, I think, 4 coils, optically commutated, pulsed singly, coupled to a G stage consisting of a single coil. No flywheel was used in the SM, but the
machined aluminum rotors undoubtedly were massive enough to provide substantial flywheel effect.
This device had pencilled notations on the base indicating 265% OU performance, and Minato touted this device as being easy to measure and unequivocal in
its performance. Several persons, during the two days of testing, asked why the output could not be fed to the input of this device,
but no rational answer was ever given by the Minato group.
Indeed, the performance of this device was unequivocal. Ironically, the ISSO team's measurements were substantially identical to those noted on the device.
Large Machine
input output Ext power supply** Flywheel
coil # meter method* V A % Duty Cycle V A % Duty Cycle load (ohms) A V Hz RPM
8 F123 M 1.48 0.11 6.9 … … … 8.6 WW 1.2 24.0 10.98 329.4
I 6.20 0.31
5 F123 M 1.49 0.13 6.9 … … … 8.6 WW 1.2 24.0 10.97 329.1
I 6.25 0.36
3 F123 M 1.50 0.13 6.9 … … … 8.6 WW 1.3 24.0 10.87 326.1
I 6.18 0.38
8 F123 M 1.48 0.11 6.9 4.60 0.56 "DC" 8.6 WW 1.3 24.0 11.04 331.2
I 6.20 0.31
8 F123 M 1.48 0.11 6.9 4.75 0.57 "DC" 8.6 WW 1.3 24.0 11.16 334.8
I 6.20 0.31
8 F123 M 1.51 0.12 6.8 1.25 0.92 "DC" 1.5 WW 1.2 24.0 7.22 216.6
I 6.17 0.31
8 F123 M 1.48 0.11 6.9 6.70 0.45 "DC" 15.1 WW 1.3 24.0 13.11 393.3
I 6.23 0.31
8 F123 M 1.48 0.11 6.9 5.05 0.72 AC "trms" 7.1 WW 1.3 24.0 10.67 320.1
I 6.23 0.31 (rectifier bypassed)
Input power to 8-channel optical commutator/drive coil power supply
meter method* V A % Duty Cycle Since the device will not operate without this commutation circuit,
F123 I 24.01 1.753 regulated DC these are really the appropriate numbers to use for input power calculations.
* Method of measurement indicates whether "average" mode (I.e. analog simulation) "M" or true peak on-time power "I" is being reported.
The F123 was used in 2-channel mode to provide these readings simultaneously, and Minato's instruments agreed to the least signifcant
digit with the "M" measurements in every case.
** These readings are from the panel display of the regulated power supply, which was operating in CV mode.
It was clear to us that the above method differs from the method used by Mr. Minato and the other groups that tested his device. The way that they calculated the power was to multiply the time integral of the voltage by the time integral of the current which gives an artificially high figure since one has integrated twice rather than over a single period of time which is all that has actually occurred during the measurement – one single time period.
The product of two integrals is not equal to the integral of a product of two values.
The former is the method used by Mr. Minato and JMP and the latter is the method, standard in electronics textbooks worldwide, that we at ISSO have used.
This is the error in our estimation by which an over unity value has repeatedly been derived by Mr. Minato and numerous other groups. We repeat that we have no quarrel with the measurements made by Mr. Minato and JMP. Our equipment made the same measurements and we arrived at essentially the same figures. Our concern is with the method of calculating the total power output used. One method gives an over unity figure while another method gives a decidedly under unity (less than 100% output compared to input) figure. The former method we maintain is incorrect and misleading while the latter method is the correct one and gives an output power which is not greater than the input power.
This conclusion was admittedly derived by calculation and not directly or empirically. For this effectively to be done, the output terminals need to be hooked up to a calorimeter which can measure the heat (and therefore, power) output from the motor. The output power obtained by calculation was sufficient to convince us that the Minato Motor is not an over unity device. If our conclusions based on our calculations (or conclusions based on calculations in general) are still disputed, the way to settle the matter once and for all would be to do a calorimetric test of the output power or to close the loop and demonstrate whether or not the motor can function as a self running device.
It is our conviction that such a closed loop self running configuration has not been presented (after we specifically asked to see such a configuration) because at least in the present magnetic motor design it simply will not work.
|
| Parent |
|
Re: Dissenting Views re Minato Report (Score: 1)
by Overtone on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 @ 15:44:33 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.magneticpowerinc.com | Engineer #1, who is actively working in this field and would qualify as what the Patent Office would call “a person skilled in the art”, writes: Now that I have been able to see the tabular data in the "Report", I can say with confidence, these "examiners" have completely faulty conclusions.
They used excellent instrumentation, and took good readings, in agreement with Minato's - which also used digital sampling, not just DMM's.
However, they are completely out to lunch as to how they are calculating things, and they do indeed fail to account for the OUTPUT power of Joule heating of the coils, as well as friction/windage of the rotor system.
Not to mention the "generator" half of the rotary system is likely only 50 or 60% efficient on it's own - I find that two out of 4 of their measurements on the "large" system, to be 1.02and 1.14 COP comparing the direct input to the motor coils, vs output from generator coils - by their own measured values.
When you take into account the generator inefficiency, and copper and frictional losses, being required to come from that motor input as well, the system is decidedly O/U!!!
As to their assertion that because it cannot be self powered, means their conclusion is correct - is also faulty. 1.14 useful COP is not enough to self power, given the other losses they have not accounted for, which for self powering will also include the silicon losses, and power for the optical timing system. To self power with these real losses, the useful COP would need to be at least 2, perhaps more.
Conventionally trained persons; and supposedly they should know better - are allowing their bias to govern how they view the results - and the brainwashing is forming the conclusion that it is not gainful by way of selective results, and selective application of the tabulation of the measurements!
Engineer #2, also “skilled in the art”, writes: I suspected something was wrong with that report. All the conventional bias from classical training will color the perceptions of those doing the measurements. They "expected" this result and skewed their view to get just what they expected to "prove" their point.
It just offers significant energy savings to users over conventional devices. In essence that is what Minato is doing. Cost savings to businesses and other users is a good enough selling point. …That in itself is a viable product to me.
|
| Parent |
|
|
|
