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.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82004
  • *Latest: jolyon

  • *Total Posts: 493033
  • *Total Topics: 14497
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 64
  • *Total: 64

Facebook

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 8261 times)

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2017, 02:41:43 AM »
Ok,so after much hunting,i found a link to a thread at EF,that is about the energizer.

From Peter Lindermann him self,which confirms some of my earlier thoughts.

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Thought I'd drop in and share a few things.

There is another interesting feature of the Watson Machine that is usually overlooked, and that is the motor. The salvaged aircraft starter/generator unit was essentially a system that had a wound field and a wound rotor, with a brush commutator. It was probably SERIES WOUND. This means that when the motor is offered electric current from the battery, it will produce bursts of TORQUE. It also means that when the motor is disconnected from the battery, it will produce NO back EMF and NO DRAG except for the brush friction.

If you attempt to use a DC motor with a permanent magnet field in this machine, it won't work, because these motors ALWAYS produce reverse currents into the shorted turns of the rotor windings, and therefore, always produce DRAG when not connected to a power supply! You can see this behavior quite easily when you try to spin the shaft. A permanent magnet field DC motor will NOT free wheel when disconnected from power. They stop very quickly due to their internal short circuit on the rotor!

For those of you who have seen my DVD Electric Motor Secrets, you may also understand that if this motor/flywheel system is run at a speed that is significantly near the top speed of the motor for its excitation voltage, the current draw will be greatly reduced, because the internal back EMF of the motor will be approaching maximum. There are other subtleties to this aspect of the machine that only become apparent after significant experimentation with motors.

With the permanent magnet induced, inductive collapse "energizer" driving into a capacitor, the back EMF drag of the generator section drops to a very low value because the system is encouraged to produce VOLTAGE instead of current. Current production is the ONLY aspect of electricity that causes DRAG according to Lenz Law, not voltage.

This is the first machine that Bedini developed for the charging of a battery from a capacitor dump. Its a brilliant little arrangement because the capacitor never drops below the battery voltage, so when it is disconnected from the battery, 100% of the energy it receives from the "energizer" is added to the capacitor at a voltage ABOVE the battery voltage. So, the system can produce 100% of its energy at reduced back EMF and make ALL of it available to the battery.

With the flywheel storing the torque, produced by the motor pulses and consumed by the "current production" of the energizer, the "window" for understanding HOW the machine can go OU is revealed. This machine cannot work without a proportional flywheel and a good, low friction bearing system.

The secret of the machine is in "managing" the back EMF production in both the motor and the generator. The motor MUST be able to operate in a pure "free wheel mode" in-between the torque pulses it contributes. The energizer MUST charge into a capacitor so its output is biased toward VOLTAGE production and away from current. This reduces the back EMF drag (reverse motoring effect) it produces.

When all of the components are proportional (tuned) and the system gets up to operational speed, the losses go to minimum and the COP goes above 1 and the battery starts charging.

So,i have highlighted key points.

1-we need a series or parallel wound DC motor--not a PM DC motor--Peter says-->probably SERIES WOUND.
As i stated to Grum,and confirmed by PL-->understand that if this motor/flywheel system is run at a speed that is significantly near the top speed of the motor for its excitation voltage, the current draw will be greatly reduced, because the internal back EMF of the motor will be approaching maximum

No problem,i have many starter motors  ;)

2-,we need high voltage output from the energizer--Erfinder seems to be on track there.

3-we do need a cap/cap bank-as i added into the schematic.

Bit i dont see or understand in regards to the provided schematic--->Quote: With the permanent magnet induced, inductive collapse "energizer"

Where is this inductive collapse mechanism in the schematic ?,as all i see is the gen coils going straight to a FWBR  ???

And yes--we have the claim by PL
Quote: the losses go to minimum and the COP goes above 1


Source

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3927-watson-machine.html#post48882


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2017, 02:41:43 AM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13555
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2017, 03:09:02 AM »
The proven OU device here is the FLYWHEEL, but nobody seems to check i posted above on this page.  We might need Buck-Boost converter on that HV capacitor being charge to convert it to pure amperage(12v or 24v) that can drive the motor when switch over. Chas Campbell was one of the example, so many have already uploaded the so called FLYWHEEL Free Energy Generator on the Youtube.

Will

No, FLYWHEELs are energy _storage_ devices. You get out what you put in, minus losses. Do you think a Bank is a money source? No... you get out what you put in, or you have to pay back more than you take out in loans.

None of the alleged flywheel Free Energy Generator devices actually work to give more out than in.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13555
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2017, 03:16:30 AM »
Brad -- you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained. I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work.  8)


Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3897
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2017, 03:30:21 AM »
"And with the Advanced book coming, it
will take everyone’s experiments and results to the
next level!"

Peel that onion DOWN bro


Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2017, 03:37:44 AM »
 author=TinselKoala link=topic=17491.msg512968#msg512968 date=1510452990]


But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work.  8)
[/quote]

Ah yes

That is your self tuning thingy--isnt it?

 
Quote
you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained.

Yes--to date,none of the Bedini camp's claims have been verified

Quote
I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

I would have to agree,after watching most of his video's.

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2017, 03:37:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2017, 03:48:14 AM »
Dose any one have any objections to me using the below as the generator?,as it would be far more efficient than any hand wound bedini number.

At 2000RPM,it develops 620VPP from each phase.
In this case,we would just pull off one phase.
Probably will split the phase we are using in half,and parallel connect each half,so as to reduce the voltage to 1/2,as i dont think we need 600+ volts.
 These motors make great high frequency, very low cogging generators.

Also pictured is the 400 amp duel pole,double throw relay i will be using to switch from motor to cap discharge.


Brad

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2017, 04:57:49 AM »
The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.

Right, that is what I was saying. :) The only way the caps could be discharged lower than
the battery voltage is if something like a boost converter circuit was used to discharge them.
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point. This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.
Where is the high current coming from to charge the large capacitors fast if high current is what you are trying to avoid?
('High' and 'low' are relative terms however...)


Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'. If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot
of wasted time and effort. ;) Focusing on OU device claims that have at least been shown to be able to be self maintaining
in some way starts to be become an essential requirement after a while. :D Even that doesn't rule out potential hoaxes or fraud however.

The reality seems to be there are few OU device claims which look potentially promising where full essential build details are known. Either
essential build details are lacking, or the claims are otherwise lacking or suspect in various ways. This is why I personally have been focusing in the
last few years on testing potential concepts rather than trying to replicate specific device claims. It is not necessarily any more
productive, but at least I am in full control of the test setup details. :)





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2017, 04:57:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2017, 07:44:52 AM »
To try to clarify the point I was trying to make in my comment above,
what I was getting at is that if there is a claimed OU device which seems to possibly hold
some potential for being a real OU device, then if all the important build details are not known
(which is typically the case) then if you have an idea of what the key concepts are
supposed to be that are supposed to make the device OU, then another approach is to
try to think up some simple test setups which can put those specific concepts to the tests.

For example, if I remember correctly I think Grummage did some tests in the past with a
big flywheel where he was trying to test if a large flywheel may pull in extra energy from the
'ambient' somehow. So people could think how to do a basic test setup which would show
clearly if this is the case or not.

The other concept of having generator output coils presumably with large winding turn counts
to produce higher voltage rather than higher current (if I understood correctly) could also potentially
be put to the test in a simple and basic test configuration.

By separating out and putting concepts to the test in simple and easy to understand basic test setups
where ever possible, you may have a better chance of seeing if there really is anything interesting
going on there or not. Trying to replicate someone else's device in which you typically are lacking
important details may often not be too practical. That's my own approach these days anyway. :)



Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2017, 08:00:11 AM »
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512972#msg512972 date=1510459069]


 
Quote
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point.This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

Well,that is doable.
At 12 volt's,we would be allowed a current of 4.6 amp's.
The 12 volt series wound motor i am going to use surprisingly only draws 2.8 amps free wheeling =33.6 watts.
This leaves us with 20 watts to overcome any other friction added to the system,which in this case is 2 more bearing's,and the generators drag.

We must also remember that the motor is on only 50% of the time,and so would only consume 1/2 of that 33.6 watt's-->if the speed can be maintained at the 50% duty cycle.

Quote
I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.

No necessarily.

Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.

We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

Quote
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'.

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.

Quote
Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

Well,the Wright brothers never had the full detailed plans to build a plane either.They learned by building and trying it out,then made the changes needed.
In fact,every invention was trial and error--not from detailed plan's.
At least here we have a starting point,and claims to go with it.

Quote
There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.

Well,with this machine,there would be no such measurement error,as it is an electromechanical looped device.

If the battery drains down over a period of time--then it's shit. ::)
If the battery voltage increases over time--then it's good. :D

Quote
If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot


I have a few tricks up my sleeve that i want to try on this one anyway   ;)

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2017, 08:54:57 AM »
So,after a search through my large crate full of capacitors,i found these 4

I think they'll do the trick for a start.

So,now have all the bit's needed,including the relay switching circuit from the SMD experiments.

Time to build i think  ;)


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2017, 08:54:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2017, 09:41:42 AM »

No necessarily.
Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.
We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

...

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.



Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)


Offline Erfinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #41 on: November 12, 2017, 09:56:06 AM »
Dose any one have any objections to me using the below as the generator?,as it would be far more efficient than any hand wound bedini number.


yes...  I have an objection....  the device depicted in the diagram is labeled as an "energizer" not a generator.....  the information that the community was provided by Peter Lindeman "after the fact" should not be taken into consideration, why?  He never explained what it was, instead while intersted parties were distracted, he substituted the energizer for a conventional generator, alternator, dynamo, what have you.... 

At 2000RPM,it develops 620VPP from each phase.
In this case,we would just pull off one phase.


If you insist on using this charging method, know that you will be at the mercy of Lenz, each time your cap is discharged below 620v, or whatever the maximum voltage is of your generator.  Some time ago I had an offline discussion with Matt Watts,  I shared with him how I interpret this situation and how to get around this limitation...  I learned the trick from Tesla, Adams, Muller, and Bedini....




Probably will split the phase we are using in half,and parallel connect each half,so as to reduce the voltage to 1/2,as i dont think we need 600+ volts.
 These motors make great high frequency, very low cogging generators.

Also pictured is the 400 amp duel pole,double throw relay i will be using to switch from motor to cap discharge.


Brad


Cogging is compensated for by the flywheel...so we don't have to care about that....The "energizer" in the example also uses an offset there are an even number of magnets and an odd number of coils....  one could setup an offset between an even number of coils and magnets, however, this is a more involved process...   Point is...cogging isn't an issue..


The voltage at the output, through what mechanism it's produced, what level it must reach, these are issues of paramount importance.  The voltage must be HIGH, allowing for one to charge a relatively small capacity, between 10 and 200uf in a single impulse.  The mistake being made is to be found in how we assume the system accumulates energy over several cycles....it doesn't! 


Look.....The fact that the community is even entertaining the idea of replicating this device shows that those chomping at the bit, ready to go weren't paying attention.  Bedini informed the community that the SG is the Watson machine!  The SG merged the prime mover (aircraft starter) with the "energizer", he said this too many times..... 


Know a thing by what it does.....  The energizer is nothing more than a magneto, magnet, coil, points....  energizer, magnets, coil, BJT.....  the drawback then and and now, Lenz....  he elevated himself above the problem by combining two forms of induction, he accumulated energy over several cycles in a cap (not a contradiction to what I mentioned previous...this is about the SG as we are familiar with it today, and not about the Free energy generator that inspired the SG...), allowing the voltage to rise above the "terminal voltage", and then discharged that bank down to the terminal voltage while you were sleeping.....


We see a literal paradigm shift when he begins experiments with the Kromrey Converter, the idea is still the same, the fusion of the prime mover with low drag generator....  Kromrey converters dont have drag, they only have massive cogging, an issue which can be dealt with with relative ease. His G-Field devices (his version of the Kromrey) were claimed to produce high voltages....the mechanism for generating the high potentials....think SG fused with Kromrey...  Unfortunately, we weren't privileged to see his in operation....


The machine cannot run itself, not how its setup....  you might have a chance though, if you can convert the generator into a motor during the time when the prime mover is disengaged.....


Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2017, 10:56:25 AM »
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512979#msg512979 date=1510476102]


Quote
Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Quote
I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)

There is only one way to find out,and that is-go into the project with an open mind,and see the results for your self.

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4879
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »
 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg512980#msg512980 date=1510476966]

 

Quote
yes...  I have an objection....  the device depicted in the diagram is labeled as an "energizer" not a generator.....  the information that the community was provided by Peter Lindeman "after the fact" should not be taken into consideration, why?  He never explained what it was, instead while intersted parties were distracted, he substituted the energizer for a conventional generator, alternator, dynamo, what have you....

OK,so the schematic below is wrong--!OR! missing bits?.

Quote
If you insist on using this charging method, know that you will be at the mercy of Lenz, each time your cap is discharged below 620v, or whatever the maximum voltage is of your generator.  Some time ago I had an offline discussion with Matt Watts,  I shared with him how I interpret this situation and how to get around this limitation...

Are you willing to help out with this project in a straight forward manner ?,as in sharing how you circumvented the lenz drag,or perhaps completing the schematic as John had it.

Quote
Cogging is compensated for by the flywheel...so we don't have to care about that....The "energizer" in the example also uses an offset there are an even number of magnets and an odd number of coils....  one could setup an offset between an even number of coils and magnets, however, this is a more involved process...   Point is...cogging isn't an issue..

Yes,no problem with cogging with a good sized flywheel.
However,if there were an even number of magnets,and an odd number of coil,would mean that each the coils were not hooked in series or parallel,as each of there phases would be different.

Quote
The voltage at the output, through what mechanism it's produced, what level it must reach, these are issues of paramount importance.  The voltage must be HIGH, allowing for one to charge a relatively small capacity, between 10 and 200uf in a single impulse.  The mistake being made is to be found in how we assume the system accumulates energy over several cycles....it doesn't!

Well,with parts of the schematic/circuit missing from what we have,it's going to have to be by trial and error.

Quote
Look.....The fact that the community is even entertaining the idea of replicating this device shows that those chomping at the bit, ready to go weren't paying attention.  Bedini informed the community that the SG is the Watson machine!

Actually,Bedini said the watson machine was a copy of his machine.

Quote
The machine cannot run itself, not how its setup....  you might have a chance though, if you can convert the generator into a motor during the time when the prime mover is disengaged.....

Well i suppose that i could build a 3 phase drive circuit,as it was a motor to start with.

Im guessing that it should be a pulsed motor though,and we are then to look at the inductive kickback as our high voltage source.


Brad


Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2017, 11:34:03 AM »

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.

Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions. :)

I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning. :)
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... If some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them. ;)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2017, 11:34:03 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: