Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 495056
  • *Total Topics: 14567
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 192
  • *Total: 195

Facebook

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 20938 times)

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #195 on: November 18, 2017, 12:12:27 AM »
In case this is of use to anyone here, I did a quick test to see what the
current waveform looks like when discharging a 5300uF (3300uF + 2000uf)
cap bank charged to 24V into a small 12V 5AH Sealed Lead Acid (SLA) battery.

I wanted to see what kind of current spike waveform I get from that arrangement.
I used a clamp current probe over the wire to measure the current waveform.
My SLA battery was sitting at about 13.1V. I just used some test leads to connect
things together in this quick test setup, so there is probably a little extra
resistance in there skewing the results a bit. With thicker wires and everything
connected really solidly, the current might well peak a little higher and be of a
shorter duration.

A 5300uF cap bank charged to 24V = 1.5 Joules
When it is discharged to 13.1V, it has 0.455 Joules remaining in it.
That means that for each discharge of the cap at 24V into the battery, about
1 Joule of energy will get transferred into the battery. How much of that 1 Joule of
energy the battery can actually absorb with each discharge pulse is another matter...

It looks like the cap discharge current pulse peaked at about 17.4A, and the
current pulse lasted about 10ms. Not sure why the current pulse was squared
off a bit at the top. I think this should be a close enough representation though.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #195 on: November 18, 2017, 12:12:27 AM »

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4903
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #196 on: November 18, 2017, 01:36:23 PM »
In case this is of use to anyone here, I did a quick test to see what the
current waveform looks like when discharging a 5300uF (3300uF + 2000uf)
cap bank charged to 24V into a small 12V 5AH Sealed Lead Acid (SLA) battery.

I wanted to see what kind of current spike waveform I get from that arrangement.
I used a clamp current probe over the wire to measure the current waveform.
My SLA battery was sitting at about 13.1V. I just used some test leads to connect
things together in this quick test setup, so there is probably a little extra
resistance in there skewing the results a bit. With thicker wires and everything
connected really solidly, the current might well peak a little higher and be of a
shorter duration.

A 5300uF cap bank charged to 24V = 1.5 Joules
When it is discharged to 13.1V, it has 0.455 Joules remaining in it.
That means that for each discharge of the cap at 24V into the battery, about
1 Joule of energy will get transferred into the battery. How much of that 1 Joule of
energy the battery can actually absorb with each discharge pulse is another matter...

It looks like the cap discharge current pulse peaked at about 17.4A, and the
current pulse lasted about 10ms. Not sure why the current pulse was squared
off a bit at the top. I think this should be a close enough representation though.

Thanks for doing that test Void--much appreciated

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13578
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #197 on: November 18, 2017, 02:01:39 PM »
I think the point I've been trying to make is that virtually all replications will still allow the excuse of "not exact enough" when/if they are found not to meet the OU claims of the originator.
But if someone can get their hands on an original unit, that once was claimed to be OU by the Builder Himself, even that might not remove all possibility of the "not close enough" excuse -- as local conditions may vary, or any of a number of other factors not directly associated with the build itself.


Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #198 on: November 18, 2017, 04:02:32 PM »
Thanks for the jokes fellers  ;D

Who is going to hand in a working device ? it just won't happen, not to mention the problems to the system and the relief of the earth environmental change and then there is greed.

Lets make a start eh! with word, what word 'electric' or 'electricity' oh we keep coming back to the word, what word ?

This word is 'ELECTRON' and what it produces and what does it produce ?  MAGNETISM and what does that do ? slows everything down to the speed of light.

What happens if you dump the electron, what have you got ?

come on !

Offline Jeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #199 on: November 18, 2017, 04:03:29 PM »
Looks to me that battery presents some resistance for this very brief period, which eventually breaks down. 
Dirt at the conducts or an internal battery's characteristic?

And it is also this stair like decay if you zoom at the picture. Except if Void changed V/div after waveform's capture.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #199 on: November 18, 2017, 04:03:29 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline web000x

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #200 on: November 18, 2017, 07:22:14 PM »
I think the point I've been trying to make is that virtually all replications will still allow the excuse of "not exact enough" when/if they are found not to meet the OU claims of the originator.
But if someone can get their hands on an original unit, that once was claimed to be OU by the Builder Himself, even that might not remove all possibility of the "not close enough" excuse -- as local conditions may vary, or any of a number of other factors not directly associated with the build itself.


Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.


I have only loosely been following this thread but haven’t seen much focus on the actual Jim Watson device as blueprints for building.  It would seem that if that device was the one that caught the attention of so many people, that we should look at its clues.  Has anyone got their sights set on an energizer which uses an unequal number of magnets to coils?  You can see in the photos of the Watson machine that the magnets don’t line up perfectly with the coils and that there is an unequal offset between the two..


Just thinking out loud and am curious if anyone is replicating in this direction..


Thanks,


Dave
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 03:43:55 AM by web000x »

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #201 on: November 18, 2017, 09:14:27 PM »
Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.

Hi TK. Yes, I had thought that the squared off peak might just be due to my not so
very good quality current probe. :)  I was avoiding using a CSR because even with a
CSR value of 0.22 ohms and with the current pulse peaking at around 18A, that would
be a voltage drop across the CSR of about 4V. Also, the increased resistance will increase
the cap discharge time constant, making the cap discharge time take a fair bit longer. 

I repeated the test with a 0.22 Ohm nominal resistor (lowest ohm value I have on hand) for the CSR,
and it doesn't square off the peak of the current pulse, so it looks like my cheapo current probe was doing that. :)
See the attached scope shot. It shows a peak of 2.66V across the 0.22 Ohm CSR, so 2.66V / 0.22 Ohms
equals 12.1A peak. I believe the current peak is lower than when using the current probe because of the
added resistance of 0.22 Ohms. Also the current pulse duration was quite a bit longer at a little over 17.5 ms,
which again would be due to the addition of the 0.22 Ohms increasing the cap discharge time constant.
It just goes to show that in a setup like this you want to use appropriate gauge wires and make sure all
wire connections are clean and solid to reduce resistive losses as much as possible.

I repeated the Cap discharge test using the same 5300 uF cap bank charged to about 24V, and
discharged into a much larger lawn tractor type 12V lead acid battery, and the current pulse waveform
using my current probe looks almost identical to the waveform when discharging into the smaller
5 AH SLA battery, so the capacity and size of the battery doesn't seem to affect the current discharge
pulse waveform too much in any noticeable way.

Looks to me that battery presents some resistance for this very brief period, which eventually breaks down. 
Dirt at the conducts or an internal battery's characteristic?
And it is also this stair like decay if you zoom at the picture. Except if Void changed V/div after waveform's capture.

Hi Jeg. It looks like the squared off peak and maybe some of that jagged look to the waveform is
due to my cheapo scope current probe. :) I didn't change the V/div on the scope after capturing
the waveform. That was how it came out. Part of the jagged appearance may also be due in part
to image rendering aliasing. The scope display is pretty low resolution.

All the best...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #201 on: November 18, 2017, 09:14:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1434
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #202 on: November 18, 2017, 09:44:08 PM »
I used my current probe (green) in a similar way as described by Void together with a measurement with a 0.1 Ohm csr (yellow).

I have a 4000uF cap loaded to 25.8V and a 12V 7Ah battery reading 12.8V.
The cap at 25.8C contains a charge of 1.33J
After dump into the battery, it contains at 12.8V still 0.327J, so we dumped about 1J into the battery, like Void did.

My current probe (green) set at it max setting (5A/Div.) also showed the flat topping like in Voids screenshot, with some spikes before due to mr Hand making the connection see screenshot 1.
With the 0.1 Ohm non inductive csr (yellow), no flat topping was seen and a whopping 87.6A (8.76 / 0.1) was measured being dumped into the battery.

Using a 1 Ohm csr makes a lot of difference as it seems to limit the current being dumped, see screenshot 2
Now we have 12.6A being dumped via the csr (12.6 / 1) yellow trace and confirmed by the current probe green.


So i think the current probes are being overdriven or saturated.


Itsu



Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #203 on: November 18, 2017, 10:21:27 PM »
Hi Itsu. Thanks for doing that test. It is interesting that your current probe also
showed a squared off top on the current peak.  Strange that you measured such
a higher current peak than me using your 0.1 Ohm CSR, as your setup was similar
to my test setup. Maybe the test leads I was using have too much resistance and
that reduced the current peak quite a bit.

At any rate, it shows that even with a relatively smaller sized cap bank and charged only
to around 25V you should still expect quite large cap discharge peak currents, so if you
are using a relay to discharge the cap bank you may want one that has quite a high current
rating, like Tinman said he was going to try. If you are planning on using a commutator, then
keep in mind that the cap current discharge pulse could take up to 25 ms or possibly even longer,
depending on the resistance in commutator contacts and wiring connections.

All the best...

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #204 on: November 19, 2017, 01:25:15 AM »
@Void (can't help myself @grum) (When I talk to any @member)

So, now maybe try the same thing with two then three batteries in series to equal the actual discharge voltage and more. See if there is a difference from your firsts.

wattsup

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #204 on: November 19, 2017, 01:25:15 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #205 on: November 19, 2017, 05:46:53 AM »
@Void (can't help myself @grum) (When I talk to any @member)

So, now maybe try the same thing with two then three batteries in series to equal the actual discharge voltage and more. See if there is a difference from your firsts.

wattsup


 ??? ??? ??? ???

If the batteries are in series and equal the discharge voltage, then there would be no discharge to show on the scope..   :o ??? ::)

Mags

Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1434
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #206 on: November 19, 2017, 11:40:14 AM »
Hi Itsu. Thanks for doing that test. It is interesting that your current probe also
showed a squared off top on the current peak.  Strange that you measured such
a higher current peak than me using your 0.1 Ohm CSR, as your setup was similar
to my test setup. Maybe the test leads I was using have too much resistance and
that reduced the current peak quite a bit.

At any rate, it shows that even with a relatively smaller sized cap bank and charged only
to around 25V you should still expect quite large cap discharge peak currents, so if you
are using a relay to discharge the cap bank you may want one that has quite a high current
rating, like Tinman said he was going to try. If you are planning on using a commutator, then
keep in mind that the cap current discharge pulse could take up to 25 ms or possibly even longer,
depending on the resistance in commutator contacts and wiring connections.

All the best...

I did use short (5cm) thick (2.5mm² stranded) wire with slip-on and ring lugs, so the resistance was minimal. 

At 0.1 Ohm csr, the current was much more then expected and more then the current probe can handle according to its specs:

Maximum continuous current AM503B: 20 A (DC + peak AC)
Maximum pulsed current 50A                   <---------------------------
Amp⋅second product 1x10-4 A⋅s (100 A⋅us)

Probably the "amp.second product" spec. limited it to the 25A seen on the screenshot before flattopping (disregarding the current spike at the very beginning of the pulse).

Anyway, minimum resistance is key in this setup i think and/or useable to limit / control the current going in the battery.

 
Itsu
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 08:35:03 PM by itsu »

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4903
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #207 on: November 20, 2017, 06:20:09 AM »
Ok,some facts about Bedini's  actual energizer he had working on his bench-well what he claimed was working on his bench.

1-why all north out with the magnets?.

The answer is simple.
As it was required to draw current from the energizer only as the magnets were leaving the core of the coils, to achieve this,all the magnets poles must be the same at each coil.
There is no reason at all you could not have all south poles out on the rotor.
You cannot use alternating poles to achieve the required half wave rectification, where current is only drawn from the coils after the magnets are leaving the center of the coil cores.
For this reason, my rotor on my large energizer is no good for the replication.

2- the energizer diagram that has been posted a few times here,is not the energizer Bedini had working on his bench.

3- the effect that makes this machine work, has very little to do with the energizer it self.

4- no one !including Bedini him self!, has ever shown this device working as claimed.

5- continuous high current pulsing into batteries-kills the batteries.

6- Bedini's  working model,had no large flywheel.
The rotor carrying the magnets was also acting as the flywheel.


More to come soon.


Brad

Offline Jeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #208 on: November 20, 2017, 11:08:19 AM »

There is no reason at all you could not have all south poles out on the rotor.


Yes that is true.

For the records, Leedskalnin spoke about a difference only when magnets are in different level than the coil cores..

"...Cut a strip of a tin can about two inches wide and a foot long. Put the North Pole of the U shape magnet on top of the strip, and dip the lower end in iron filings, and see how much it lifts. Now put the South Pole on top and see how much it lifts. Change several times, then you will see that the North Pole lifts more than the South Pole Now put the North Pole magnet under the iron filing box, and see how much it pushes up. Now change. put South Pole magnet under the box and see how much it pushes up. Do this several times, then you will see that the South Pole magnet pushes up more than North Pole magnet.  This experiment shows again that on level ground the magnets are in equal strength. ..."   Ed. Leedskalnin

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4903
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #209 on: November 21, 2017, 05:27:00 AM »
So,the energizer uses two effect to achieve the !claimed! self running machine.

1-the magneto is designed so as it is a high output,low drag generator.

This is achieved in two ways.
1-all the magnets poles have the same pole interacting with all the coils at the same time.
All coils are wound in the same direction,and are half wave rectified,so as current is drawn from the coils as the magnets are leaving the cores of the coils.
The claimed advantage to this is -the magnets can be pulled toward the cores without a magnetic field being produced by the coils,hat would push against the approaching magnets.
This !apparently! added mechanical energy to the system that is not provided by the motor.
Each coil also had a capacitor of the correct value placed across it,to form a tank circuit between coil and cap.

Second effect.

Lead acid batteries must be used in this device.
By pulse charging a LAB with high current pulses,it is claimed that both a magnetic and chemical reaction in the battery would offset any current drawn from the battery by the motor by more than 100%.
It is claimed that the ions in the battery are accelerated to a higher velocity by the high current pulses,than that of what the current draw by the motor would achieve.
The ions are of course flowing in the opposite direction during the high current pulses,to that of the direction they flow during motor on time,which causes the battery to charge at a higher rate than it is being discharged.

These are the claims by the inventer.

There will be those that think they know better,but they will also be the same people that have nothing to offer them self.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #209 on: November 21, 2017, 05:27:00 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink