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: 82017
  • *Latest: heinnex

  • *Total Posts: 493245
  • *Total Topics: 14501
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 77
  • *Total: 83

Facebook

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 12594 times)

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #120 on: November 14, 2017, 08:05:04 PM »
I for one am interested in what you have to say here.  If you would, please attach your pdf so those of us that do have the time may gain from your experience!
Regards,
Pm

Hi partzman. He already did attach his PDF to his reply in Post #101...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #120 on: November 14, 2017, 08:05:04 PM »

Offline vasik041

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • FE R&D
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #121 on: November 14, 2017, 08:09:21 PM »
I for one am interested in what you have to say here.  If you would, please attach your pdf so those of us that do have the time may gain from your experience!

Attached PDF describes shortly how I came to it.
PDF with experiment is here http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078
There is also thread on OUR http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0

Hope it helps somebody.



Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #122 on: November 14, 2017, 08:20:49 PM »
Hi vasik041. Aside from the problem of measurement error etc., being potentially much more significant
at very low power levels, another possibility for the difference in capacitor charge voltage with the
extra coil and magnet added is you are changing the overall output impedance when adding the
extra coil, and this can certainly lead to a difference in efficiency. This is another reason why you are probably
going to want to scale it up to a much higher power level if you want any real chance of seeing if something
unusual is really going on there. At the microwatts level and even at the low milliwatts level I think it is hard to
reasonably draw any conclusions unless you can make it self running somehow... I am not trying to be negative here. :)
Just speaking from long experience...

All the best...


Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #123 on: November 14, 2017, 08:24:53 PM »
Attached PDF describes shortly how I came to it.
PDF with experiment is here http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078
There is also thread on OUR http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0

Hope it helps somebody.

@Void- Thanks for the heads up as I wasn't paying attention!

@Vasik- Unbelievable!  I remembered someone who had published test results of BH curves that were unusual, but my past searching on the web had been unsuccessfully, that is, until now!  So, low and behold, here you are!!!  I greatly appreciate your work and would like to express my sincere thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Pm


Offline vasik041

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • FE R&D
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #124 on: November 14, 2017, 09:03:02 PM »
At the microwatts level and even at the low milliwatts level I think it is hard to
reasonably draw any conclusions unless you can make it self running somehow... I am not trying to be negative here. :)
Just speaking from long experience...

Hi Void,
I tend to agree with you. From long experience you probably also know that self runner is much more complex and expensive thing.
It is very unlikely that anybody who achieved it want talk to people and even more unlikely that anybody take him seriously.
Thats reality of our busy world  :)

Regards,
/V.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #124 on: November 14, 2017, 09:03:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline vasik041

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • FE R&D
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #125 on: November 14, 2017, 09:13:18 PM »
@Vasik- Unbelievable!  I remembered someone who had published test results of BH curves that were unusual, but my past searching on the web had been unsuccessfully, that is, until now!  So, low and behold, here you are!!!  I greatly appreciate your work and would like to express my sincere thanks for sharing.

Hi Partzman,
Thank you, I am glad you found interesting docs :)
They are in the web for several years now and nobody showed any real interest so far.
May be google filtering them out, who knows ?
Anyway, let me know if you have questions etc

Regards,
/V


Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2017, 10:04:33 PM »
Hi Void,
I tend to agree with you. From long experience you probably also know that self runner is much more complex and expensive thing.
It is very unlikely that anybody who achieved it want talk to people and even more unlikely that anybody take him seriously.
Thats reality of our busy world  :)
Regards,
/V.

Hi vasik041. I would say that is the reality of our crazy world. ;D

What you have experimented with may really be showing some unusual effect, but
unless you or someone else is willing to try to scale it up to higher power levels, it may
continue to be overlooked. The problem is there are so many different setups where people
have claimed OU or possible OU, and it just doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny, so it is
natural for people to become a lot more cautious after a while in regards to what they are going
to spend time looking into. It sounds like at least one other person here is interested in your setup,
so maybe someone will try to scale it up in power and see what the results are at higher power levels.

All the best...


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2017, 10:04:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4895
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #127 on: November 15, 2017, 12:13:06 AM »
Ramset, Tinman:



You always have to draw the line somewhere in this world regarding *all* matters. If someone
is disrupting things, then something needs to be done or it will likely only continue or get worse. ;)
If someone obviously doesn't have a clue about how to communicate in a civil manner, then whether it is
in a work place or a library or a court of law or in a family household or in some sort of discussion forum, you
just have to draw the line somewhere and do something concrete about it when the line is crossed. Otherwise
chaos is the only likely result. ;D

I realize that disruptive behavior and constantly throwing out insults etc., is the mentality level of many people in
this world, but that doesn't mean you have to put up with that sort of ignorant behaviour here. ;D
It doesn't matter at all if that person potentially has something useful to add. If they are constantly disrupting
things and throwing out insults, then obviously something needs to be done. There typically is just no reasoning
with people who are that ignorant/troubled, so in such a case something needs to be done.  Otherwise, there is a a good
chance that many who are interested in some serious exchange of knowledge and ideas here will quickly move on...

I am personally not interested in building motor/generator setups myself, as it is not my thing, but I am quite
interested in what the key working principles are supposed to be behind them which are supposed to lead to the 'OU results',
and whether they can be shown to actually 'work' in practice. If it works in a motor/generator setup, then I think
there is at least a possibility that the same principles might be put to use in a complete solid state setup as well.
This is why I have personally been following along with this discussion about Bedini's motor/generator setups so far.
Let's please stick to discussing the topic at hand, and if one or more people are disrupting things and won't take
the hint to cut it out, then simply do something about it... ;D

Quote
Is this going to be just another thread overrun by trolling and insults like many other threads, or what? ;)

Well i did ask Erfinder to stop posting in this thread nicely,unless the posts were going to be of a helpful nature.
But as you can see,he seems to have disregarded that request,and i cant be here 24 hours a day to remove his rubbish.

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4895
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #128 on: November 15, 2017, 12:33:52 AM »
author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513070#msg513070 date=1510674750]
 


Quote
Hi Brad. I can't say for sure, but I would guess that it will not help much in any way.
The batteries will continue to run down with no charge being applied to them.

Unless of course,the voltage across the caps and motor was at a higher potential than the two supply batteries voltages combined.

Quote
From what I can see, the whole point of this type of arrangement is to send a charge to a
battery within a one second or so window while the battery is fully disconnected from driving the motor.

Yes,and that will be done.
The question i asked was just that-a question regarding something we could try along the way.

Quote
The reason for this is if you try to send charging pulses to the battery while the battery is still driving the
motor, that momentary charge pulse or pulses (which equates to a small momentary battery voltage increase on the battery)
will just cause the motor to drive a little bit harder while the charge pulse(s) are being applied, and there will be
little to no gain in charge in the battery.  To try to get around this problem, Bedini's approach was to disconnect
the battery from the motor for about one second, use the momentum of the big flywheel to keep the generator
up to speed, and send one or more charging pulses to the battery during this one second window where the
battery is not connected to any load.

Yes,and we will be doing that.  ;)

Quote
I don't know Bedini's stuff really in depth, but the impression I get is that Bedini's OU claims for these type of setups
seems to involve having a special configuration of generator (energizer) and taking advantage of a special type
of pulsing to charge batteries in an unusual way. It seems supposedly some sort of special battery charging
action is supposed to occur which allows the batteries to charge much more efficiently than would normally occur with
more 'normal' battery charging approaches. Possibly just sending huge momentary current pulses to the battery using a large
capacitance capacitor pulse discharge is the 'secret' to getting the battery to charge faster than normal, but
something also has to first get that large capacitance cap bank charged up very fast as well during the one second window
where the cap bank is charging, so the 'energizer' would seem to need to be doing something unusual as well.

As of yet,no one has been able to show this !unusual! from the energizer.

Quote
Also, Bedini has mentioned that the battery can get damaged from charging with those large current pulses,
so it makes me wonder if these large setups can really work for any sort of an extended run even if you
can get the battery to stay charged for short runs. The question is, does sending really large current pulses to a
battery really give it a true charge, or is it just some sort of misleading 'surface charge' that occurs
which makes it look like the battery is staying charged up for shorter runs, but which will not really keep the
battery charged for long duration runs over 24 hours?

I would say the later,where they are being fooled by a surface charge on the battery--like all pulse motor fans are-->fooled by what they see across the battery.

Quote
I will be interested to see what your current setup can do as it is, to get a baseline of how it is performing.
If it is not performing well, maybe building a bit smaller scale setup using the most efficient DC motor you can
find and following Bedini's approach to building the energizer as closely as can be determined with whatever details
are available could maybe be tried by someone to see if it has much better performance than your current setup.


There is the problem--finding info to Bedini's energizer.
What ever we find,be it from Bedini's own hand drawn schematic,to some here,it's not how it is built or works.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

So,the way it is done,using a Bedini style energizer,is the power is only pulled from the coil's as the magnet is leaving the core.
So it is a half wave rectification of each coil.

The energizer it self,built the way stated in the !book!,would be of very poor efficiency.
We have hand wound coil's,soft iron bolts for core's,which would mean a large loss due to Eddy currents in the core's them self.

I have read the !books!,and must say that the energizer,built as Bedini stated,will not have a hope in hell of delivering the energy required,back to the battery.

I will be building the energizer/magneto that Bedini specifies,but i do not hold much hope for it to perform the way we need it to.

Even if we stick to exact's,there will be those here that will tell you you have done it wrong-->and they will be the same people that cannot tell you how to build it right.


Brad

Offline Magluvin

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5644
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2017, 12:38:09 AM »
Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here....

In Brads first post he states the purpose of this thread....

"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work.  It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. ;) I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? ??? Ridiculous.

Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it. From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!!  Everything else is off the shelf!!!  The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!!  How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication???????   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Well, if you all know better, then carry on.  The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2017, 12:38:09 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5644
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #130 on: November 15, 2017, 01:14:41 AM »
author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513070#msg513070 date=1510674750]
 



There is the problem--finding info to Bedini's energizer.
What ever we find,be it from Bedini's own hand drawn schematic,to some here,it's not how it is built or works.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

So,the way it is done,using a Bedini style energizer,is the power is only pulled from the coil's as the magnet is leaving the core.
So it is a half wave rectification of each coil.

The energizer it self,built the way stated in the !book!,would be of very poor efficiency.
We have hand wound coil's,soft iron bolts for core's,which would mean a large loss due to Eddy currents in the core's them self.

I have read the !books!,and must say that the energizer,built as Bedini stated,will not have a hope in hell of delivering the energy required,back to the battery.

I will be building the energizer/magneto that Bedini specifies,but i do not hold much hope for it to perform the way we need it to.

Even if we stick to exact's,there will be those here that will tell you you have done it wrong-->and they will be the same people that cannot tell you how to build it right.


Brad

The question on the energizer should be, what advantages would we want from the energizer end of the machine? Other than it is able to charge a battery or cap adequately, what attribute would be favorable in this system? What attributes of your washing machine motor as a gen would you like to be rid of to make it way better at being a gen? ???  That is what you need to look for when building and testing your energizer. You may or may not get terrific results the first build. It does not mean you should come to a final conclusion yet.

Many may disagree, but I believe Romero had it down. He concentrated on 1 specific aspect of the gen side of his system. He put a lot of time and effort in getting the best result to satisfy the goal..


Mags



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #131 on: November 15, 2017, 03:07:22 AM »
Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?




Offline Magluvin

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5644
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #132 on: November 15, 2017, 04:32:47 AM »
Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?

Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'. In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? ??? ::) What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit.  Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first.  None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.


Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags


Offline Erfinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #133 on: November 15, 2017, 08:12:36 AM »


Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4895
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #134 on: November 15, 2017, 11:08:52 AM »
author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513113#msg513113 date=1510702689]
.





Quote
"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work.  It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Quote
Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. ;) I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? ??? Ridiculous.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?
Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Quote
Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearance
What is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

Quote
Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it.

Nope
Grum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

Quote
From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!!  Everything else is off the shelf!!!  The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!!  How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication???????   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.
Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

Quote
Well, if you all know better, then carry on.  The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

Quote
Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here...

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct  ::)


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #134 on: November 15, 2017, 11:08:52 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: