Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => Resonance Circuits and Systems => Topic started by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 04:53:19 PM

Title: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 04:53:19 PM
After receiving a PM from AlianGrey,i have decided to open 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.

This thread will be moderated such as to keep it on the straight and narrow,and all comments must be related to the topic/build at the time.

AlianGrey asked in the PM--> what about the Henry Moray device and the Tesla patent and the EV Grey device.
I asked--what devices,and what patent?.

So,if you are a bedini,Ed Grey,Henry Moray,or any other type of fan,and you believe one of them to be an OU device,just place your exact schematic and build specifications here,and i(and hopefully others) will build it to your specification's.

Once you are happy with the build,we will get down to accurate power measurements.

So,who is up first?--what you got?.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on November 10, 2017, 05:08:12 PM
Does it also pertain to patented devices ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 05:11:33 PM
Does it also pertain to patented devices ?

Hi Forest.

Any device that has the designer claim it as an OU device.

All you need to supply,is exact build schematics--so as we dont have them say--oh,you did not build it right.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 10, 2017, 06:24:50 PM
If the Community will help the builders with Funding here ?
100% transparent funding ?

this could really be a wonderful place to explore claims?
and also there would be no real limit to what could be looked at here [due to financial limitations ]

and it would also be Fair to the dedicated builders here [and elsewhere] who have put in years of open source selfless work at no cost to this community.

there is a limit ..new projects should have community support, I have a feeling Forest's investigation is quite expensive and involved [if its what he has mentioned in the past]

if this thread gets roots [interest] we can talk to the Boss [our host Stefan] about how to do this funding for these bigger claims .

the problem has been the governments and Taxes ,some fellows have no interest in getting funds sent due to the Tax liabilities
which may be attached to those funds ,and if Stefan [or anyone else ] handles money for this group its a tax problem .

a separate thread should be started for this if this becomes a possibility [Funding here]

the obvious solutions of Paypal and such are not acceptable to some here ?

you must understand the problem ,if we send money to a builder for parts [no income]
he gets charged taxes by his government even tho he is making no money ?
and worse yet all his time spent on top of that ??



I am confident we can sort this !

we have many really good projects sitting waiting for resources ....
really good projects !

a separate thread or system to qualify  these projects and help manage resources would also need doing
we need more people /volunteers for this if it happens !

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: profitis on November 10, 2017, 11:00:07 PM
"and also there would be no real limit to what could
be looked at here [due to financial limitations ]"

No frigginlimitpal
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 11, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
Well as much as i appreciate what Chet is trying to do,i am happy to fund my own builds--with in reason.

So,no takers yet  :o
Where are the free energy Bedini fans?

Anyway,for your entertainment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xFhUHFnx8
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
Ok Brad.

Here's one for you.

The one that " Mythbusters " allegedly botched.

Do you, or anyone know of any successful replications? The device, " allegedly " ran for years.   :o

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 04:49:55 PM
As a suggestion, perhaps an " old school " motor with field windings may be advantageous.

A bit like this little beastie....

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on November 11, 2017, 04:51:20 PM
Done. http://changingpower.net/africa-and-free-energy/  :P
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 11, 2017, 04:55:37 PM

what's an energizer....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 05:14:06 PM
what's an energizer....

                                 ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 05:20:45 PM
But seriously....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 11, 2017, 05:56:29 PM
                                 ;)


It was a serious question......  your diagram illustrates something being called an "energizer".....  call me old fashion, but it would make sense to have a general idea of what that is before one starts scrounging for parts for a replication....


Also noted the 12kv......  this ain't no toy....  no indication of where the 12kv is coming from or where it's going..  replicate at your own risk.....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on November 11, 2017, 06:12:13 PM


Also noted the 12kv......  this ain't no toy....  no indication of where the 12kv is coming from or where it's going..  replicate at your own risk.....

Hi,

The 12 kV was a typo the journalist or the reporter should have written 12 kW I think.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 11, 2017, 06:19:32 PM
Hi,

The 12 kV was a typo the journalist or the reporter should have written 12 kW I think.

Gyula


right.....  I too recall reading somewhere that it was a typo...  what if it wasn't a typo though...  folk will be hard pressed trying to reproduce a 12kw claim, however, it may prove to be a worthy lesson, learning what it takes to produce 12kv in the "suggested" manner...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 11, 2017, 06:28:07 PM
Try to search Youtube : Flywheel Free Energy Generator devices. That drawing has been proven and tested for many replicators, they replicate base on Chas Campbell design. Many has never seen the Watson machine.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on November 11, 2017, 08:46:45 PM

right.....  I too recall reading somewhere that it was a typo...  what if it wasn't a typo though...  folk will be hard pressed trying to reproduce a 12kw claim, however, it may prove to be a worthy lesson, learning what it takes to produce 12kv in the "suggested" manner...

Well, Peter Lindemann described the Watson machine as close as he possibly could from witnesses and from 'logical deductions' in the "Bedini SG the Complete Advanced Handbook", see chapter 7.

Some hints: "The Watson machine was discharging 45000 uF (3 x 15000) capacitors charged to about 50 V, once a second into the batteries. ... John Bedini said that the relay timing was set for "once per second" switching, meaning that the machine would run the motor from the battery for one second while the capacitors were being charged. Then the relay would switch, and the machine would run from the flywheel while the capacitors discharged into the battery followed by the rest of the whole second of Energizer impulses going straight to the battery. At the end of the 2nd second, the relay would switch again, and the cycle would repeat. The method allowed 100% of the output of the Energizer to be transferred to the battery while the motor runs from the battery only 50% of the time. ... The motor running at high speed while the very large flywheel ran at a lower speed provided a very stable operation to the Energizer and maintained a relatively low power requirement to the motor. ... There were two 12 V batteries wired in parallel."

All in all, if we accept all these, then it is unlikely there was 12 kV involved and the 12 kW power number surely remains questionable,  even though the huge flywheel were capable of storing very high kinetic energy because its OD was estimated 61.4 cm, its weight was 46 kg cast iron and its RPM was estimated at 500 through a gear reduction anywhere between 6 to 1 and 10 to 1, driven from a 24 V series wound air craft starter motor. One wonders whether Jim Watson run the 24 V motor from the 12 V batteries that were said to be wired in parallel by Peter L, that is a possibility of course. (Jim Watson did not let Bedini to examine the machine closely...)   

So the performance of the Watson machine still remains a mystery...

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 11, 2017, 09:03:38 PM
Well, Peter Lindemann described the Watson machine as close as he possibly could from witnesses and from 'logical deductions' in the "Bedini SG the Complete Advanced Handbook", see chapter 7.

Some hints: "The Watson machine was discharging 45000 uF (3 x 15000) capacitors charged to about 50 V, once a second into the batteries. ... John Bedini said that the relay timing was set for "once per second" switching, meaning that the machine would run the motor from the battery for one second while the capacitors were being charged. Then the relay would switch, and the machine would run from the flywheel while the capacitors discharged into the battery followed by the rest of the whole second of Energizer impulses going straight to the battery. At the end of the 2nd second, the relay would switch again, and the cycle would repeat. The method allowed 100% of the output of the Energizer to be transferred to the battery while the motor runs from the battery only 50% of the time. ... The motor running at high speed while the very large flywheel ran at a lower speed provided a very stable operation to the Energizer and maintained a relatively low power requirement to the motor. ... There were two 12 V batteries wired in parallel."

All in all, if we accept all these, then it is unlikely there was 12 kV involved and the 12 kW power number surely remains questionable,  even though the huge flywheel were capable of storing very high kinetic energy because its OD was estimated 61.4 cm, its weight was 46 kg cast iron and its RPM was estimated at 500 through a gear reduction anywhere between 6 to 1 and 10 to 1, driven from a 24 V series wound air craft starter motor. One wonders whether Jim Watson run the 24 V motor from the 12 V batteries that were said to be wired in parallel by Peter L, that is a possibility of course. (Jim Watson did not let Bedini to examine the machine closely...)   

So the performance of the Watson machine still remains a mystery...

Gyula


We are on the same page.....however.....in light of all the copying and pasting that was going on back in the day.....and this coupled to my own endeavours, I am inclined to think that it wasn't a typo...  in the right circuit, 12kv can work wonders... 


15uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 1k joules....
170uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 12k joules.... yeah.... 


I think I am going to stick with 12kv Gylula......


on another note.... me thinks something's not quite right with the circuit....but that's me....




Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 11, 2017, 09:08:27 PM
Here is a link to a thread by someone that claims he was successful in building the Bedini/Watson machine.  He originally made an offer to me to let me come see it in operation.  Then he said he was moving.  After he got moved I tracked him down again but he said he was on the road all the time with a new job.  I never did get to see it in person.  I did not take time to go back through the whole thread but I believe there was a video or two of it operating.  And there were several pictures and drawings if I recall correctly.  Might be worth looking into his claims.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 11, 2017, 09:27:32 PM
Some hints: "The Watson machine was discharging 45000 uF (3 x 15000) capacitors charged to about 50 V, once a second into the batteries. ... J

If the caps were completely discharged every second (which they probably weren't if they were discharging into a battery),
and then fully recharged to 50V every second, it would work out to 56.25 Watts output to the batteries. If the capacitors were only being
partially discharged into the batteries every second, then the power output from the discharging caps would be less than 56.25 Watts.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 09:42:15 PM
Here is a link to a thread by someone that claims he was successful in building the Bedini/Watson machine.  He originally made an offer to me to let me come see it in operation.  Then he said he was moving.  After he got moved I tracked him down again but he said he was on the road all the time with a new job.  I never did get to see it in person.  I did not take time to go back through the whole thread but I believe there was a video or two of it operating.  And there were several pictures and drawings if I recall correctly.  Might be worth looking into his claims.

Hi Carroll.

It seems you forgot the link.   :)

A " 24 volt series wound aircraft starter motor ". Starter motors really " pull the juice " way beyond 12 Kw.... However I'm more inclined to the 12 Kv statement based upon the high voltage spikes I got when playing with Bedini's SSG.

Gearing was also mentioned, looking at the picture everything is " in line " could the motor have had a built in epicyclic gearbox?

Cheers Graham.

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 11, 2017, 10:07:29 PM

http://www.energeticforum.com/john-bedini/10830-bizzys-bedini-machine-aka-watson-machine.html?highlight=Bizzy

Old age sure causes memory problems.  LOL

Thanks Graham for catching that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: norman6538 on November 11, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
Since John Bedini passed then is Jim Watson around?

As I understand John's original energizer it had 2 parts to the rotation cycle.
One to turn mechanically and the other to generate current. In the case of the school
girl motor which everybody got excited about it had 2 outputs 1. mechanical ie would
drive a fan and 2. electrical to charge the battery which was usually wasted power that
was used to effectively make the battery run the mechanical setup longer....

Then everybody went on to the window motor. I did not follow that one.
Maybe somebody else can comment on that.

But as for known overunity that can be demonstrated, the selection is slim to non.

However if you recall Naudin had a bingo fuel generator that looped - made gas that
ran the motor that ran the generator/welder that made the gas....
It behooves me that nobody picked up on the. To me its another lifter project of more
potential value.

Norman

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:18:55 AM

We are on the same page.....however.....in light of all the copying and pasting that was going on back in the day.....and this coupled to my own endeavours, I am inclined to think that it wasn't a typo...  in the right circuit, 12kv can work wonders... 


15uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 1k joules....
170uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 12k joules.... yeah.... 


I think I am going to stick with 12kv Gylula......







Regards

I see problems with the original circuit/schematic being 12Kv

First problem--dumping 12Kv into a 12 or 24 volt battery?  :o
Second problem--12Kv will jump a gap of about 7mm,and so we would have one hell of a light show at the commutator switch.

Quote
on another note.... me thinks something's not quite right with the circuit....but that's me....

I see in the original black and white circuit,there is no FWBR across the energizer.
But there is one in the Bedini version.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:21:23 AM
If the caps were completely discharged every second (which they probably weren't if they were discharging into a battery),
and then fully recharged to 50V every second, it would work out to 56.25 Watts output to the batteries. If the capacitors were only being
partially discharged into the batteries every second, then the power output from the discharging caps would be less than 56.25 Watts.

The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:31:13 AM
author=Grumage link=topic=17491.msg512951#msg512951 date=1510432935]



Quote
Starter motors really " pull the juice " way beyond 12 Kw....

Close to Grum.
To pull 12Kw,a 24v starter motor would have to be drawing 500 amps,which is very likely under full load at a 100% duty cycle.

But here we have the motor running at 2500RPM !apparently!,and at about a 25% duty cycle.
At 2500RPM,the motor would be producing a lot of BEMF,and so the current draw would be a lot lower--closer to say 50 amps.

So 50 x 24 is 1200 watts,at a duty cycle of around 25% = 300 watts.

Quote
Gearing was also mentioned, looking at the picture everything is " in line " could the motor have had a built in epicyclic gearbox?

I also see no gearbox.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:33:38 AM
.


However if you recall Naudin had a bingo fuel generator that looped - made gas that
ran the motor that ran the generator/welder that made the gas....
It behooves me that nobody picked up on the. To me its another lifter project of more
potential value.

Norman

As both the motor and hydrogen generator both run at high losses,i doubt it was a self runner.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:58:43 AM
So,is it going to be the Bedini energizer?

I have modified the below schematic to include the cap--would this be correct?

I have all the parts needed
The motor
The duel pole-duel throw relay,rated at 60 amp's.
A 38kg flywheel
4x high current 10 000Uf 63v caps
Magnets ?--any one know what type of magnets John used in his energizer,as he always seem'd to have a soft spot for ferrite ,but i have 19mm x 25mm neo's

Coils i can wind--any spec's on those,other than 250 turns each? What core material?.Wire size?.--are they hooked in series or parallel ?--guess we can sort that out when it's running,and set to achieve our 50 volt's at the caps.

Was there claims that this device is an OU device?
What was it's purpose?,as all i see is a motor drawing power from the source,and a generator returning power back to the source.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 12, 2017, 02:13:19 AM
So,is it going to be the Bedini energizer?

I have modified the below schematic to include the cap--would this be correct?

I have all the parts needed
The motor
The duel pole-duel throw relay,rated at 60 amp's.
A 38kg flywheel
4x high current 10 000Uf 63v caps
Magnets ?--any one know what type of magnets John used in his energizer,as he always seem'd to have a soft spot for ferrite ,but i have 19mm x 25mm neo's

Coils i can wind--any spec's on those,other than 250 turns each? What core material?.Wire size?.--are they hooked in series or parallel ?--guess we can sort that out when it's running,and set to achieve our 50 volt's at the caps.

Was there claims that this device is an OU device?
What was it's purpose?,as all i see is a motor drawing power from the source,and a generator returning power back to the source.


Brad

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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 02:25:08 AM
OK,found the claim--oh,and the books you need to buy to make it work lol  ::)

Thirty years ago at the Tesla Symposium in Colorado Springs, Jim Watson demonstrated a very large scale machine based on John Bedini’s 1984 Free Energy Generator.

At the conference, the machine was running and producing a lot of mechanical work, but what was amazing is that it kept itself charged up the whole time!

It had a large three foot diameter flywheel that weighed about 800 pounds attached to an aircraft starter motor, which was battery-powered. The generator section charged a bunch of coils like a magneto, which sent this back to the battery running the machine.

Below is a diagram that John Bedini showed for his smaller prototype.


Between this image and some other diagrams – Jim Watson who had no electrical engineering background make it work.

Over the years, many people have tried and failed at replicating these claims. Very soon, we are releasing Bedini SG – The Complete Advanced Handbook. Included in this highly anticipated release are details about the Watson Machine that nobody has figured out in the last 30 years. And, the keys to making it work have been sitting right there in plain site!

There are already two books: Bedini SG – The Complete Beginner’s Handbook and Bedini SG – The Complete Intermediate Handbook. These are an absolute requirement to have in order to understand the basic working principles of self-regenerative energizers. And with the Advanced book coming, it will take everyone’s experiments and results to the next level!


So,all those that bought the !The Complete Advanced Handbook! ,should now have working machine's,where the battery remains charged,while the motor continue's to do mechanical work.

Source

https://emediapress.com/2014/10/21/watson-machine/
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: profitis 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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. :)




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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. :)


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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   ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder 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.....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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. ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 11:50:21 AM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512984#msg512984 date=1510482843]
 




Quote
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.


Yes,i understand that,but a smaller value at a higher voltage would see more of the stored energy delivered to the battery.

I have three phases on the gen i am using,and so i can split each phase into pieces,and give us 3 different working voltage's,and so,we can try various size cap banks.

Quote
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. :)

Oh yes
I am well aware of batteries and there tricks.

Quote
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. ;)

I was referring to myself.
Years ago,i was all for the free energy stuff-back in the days of IAEC.

Over the years,things never turned out like the claims being made.
And over the years,you start to learn what is rubbish,and what is true.

So i guess you could see that now as me having a closed mind,and maybe it's time i stepped into things again with an open mind  :)

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 11:54:17 AM

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


your common sense, and years of experience should have you answering yes to all of those questions...



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.


I assist how I choose to assist....you don't get to dictate how I share and communicate my perspective.  All the schematics one need are already in the public domain....the problem is, authorities and those who label themselves authorities see things at face value, what you see is not always what you get....  for the record, I know as much as the next guy about what John had....I came to my own conclusions after "considering" what he said, and what he didn't say. 

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.


There you go again, jumping to conclusions.....  things are not as they seem...


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


See this is when it helps to be a fanboy rather than a debunker....  The prior, knows the goal, and works towards it, using what was given to discover the missing pieces....  shooting in the dark (trial and error) are the tools of the ill prepared, the lazy, the debunker...


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


The funny thing about your statement here is you think you are informing me of something....you aren't....as the story goes, watson copied bedini, eventually bedini perfected the design, miniaturized it, passing it off as a novelty.....got the public intersted in it...protecting the idea, preserving the concept.... this went on for 20+ years....  finally, he scaled it back up and presented the scaled up version in 2010...  a fundamental change was introduced, namely, the SG was married to the Kromrey, with the SG operating as both an energizer and prime mover, while the kromrey operated as a generator and motor....  wrap your noggin around that one.......


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


How about brainstorming what the damn thing was supposed to be before you begin anything, and drag folk along in your wake for the ride of their lives which, if it continues the way it's going, will lead to another bashing of the inventors work, not because he failed, more like the replicator failed to appreciate the inventor's vision...


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


The prime mover, the flywheel and the energizer must become one.....  comprehend the concept, and then mirror it, nesting one system within the other, forming something likened to a fractal.... just like he did....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 12:10:44 PM

your common sense, and years of experience should have you answering yes to all of those questions...




I assist how I choose to assist....you don't get to dictate how I share and communicate my perspective.  All the schematics one need are already in the public domain....the problem is, authorities and those who label themselves authorities see things at face value, what you see is not always what you get....  for the record, I know as much as the next guy about what John had....I came to my own conclusions after "considering" what he said, and what he didn't say. 


There you go again, jumping to conclusions.....  things are not as they seem...



See this is when it helps to be a fanboy rather than a debunker....  The prior, knows the goal, and works towards it, using what was given to discover the missing pieces....  shooting in the dark (trial and error) are the tools of the ill prepared, the lazy, the debunker...



The funny thing about your statement here is you think you are informing me of something....you aren't....as the story goes, watson copied bedini, eventually bedini perfected the design, miniaturized it, passing it off as a novelty.....got the public intersted in it...protecting the idea, preserving the concept.... this went on for 20+ years....  finally, he scaled it back up and presented the scaled up version in 2010...  a fundamental change was introduced, namely, the SG was married to the Kromrey, with the SG operating as both an energizer and prime mover, while the kromrey operated as a generator and motor....  wrap your noggin around that one.......



How about brainstorming what the damn thing was supposed to be before you begin anything, and drag folk along in your wake for the ride of their lives which, if it continues the way it's going, will lead to another bashing of the inventors work, not because he failed, more like the replicator failed to appreciate the inventor's vision...



The prime mover, the flywheel and the energizer must become one.....  comprehend the concept, and then mirror it, nesting one system within the other, forming something likened to a fractal.... just like he did....

Ok Erfinder--this is not the thread for you.

You are just going to be the same old Erfinder,where we have pages of nothingness from you.

This is a thread where people will post links to vital information for each other--not just say that the information is all over the net--not good enough.

So no,this will not be a thread full of your nothingness and riddles.

So please,refrain from posting here.

I have asked nicely.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 12:15:51 PM
Ok Erfinder--this is not the thread for you.

You are just going to be the same old Erfinder,where we have pages of nothingness from you.

This is a thread where people will post links to vital information for each other--not just say that the information is all over the net--not good enough.

So no,this will not be a thread full of your nothingness and riddles.

So please,refrain from posting here.

I have asked nicely.


Brad


aye.....you asked nicely.....  hope you invested in a good life jacket.....this bucket is destined to sink....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 12, 2017, 12:53:30 PM
Dear Erfinder.

A few posts back you mentioned an “ odds even “ relationship between the energiser rotor and stator.

Most pictures on the web seem to depict an “ even “ relationship.

Was this something you developed or found advantageous from your early experiments?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 01:16:08 PM
Dear Erfinder.

A few posts back you mentioned an “ odds even “ relationship between the energiser rotor and stator.

Most pictures on the web seem to depict an “ even “ relationship.

Was this something you developed or found advantageous from your early experiments?

Cheers Graham.


With regards to the SG, everything  is even for the most part....  we never see Bedini actually do an odd even setup, we assume he had one when we research the Watson machine....assuming the attached image is a photo of the Watson device..   Look carefully at the magnets and see that they do not align with the coils.  As I stated before, you can engineer an offset within an even system, however, it's more complicated.... 


Other researchers, old men when Bedini was young, were exploring and or investigating odd versus even.  Check muller and adams for more information. 


Offset in an even system yields superior results to odd versus even systems, that has been my experience.


I responded out of respect,  you are aware that Tinman does not want me posting here....so....I hope I answered your question....  I will be respecting his wish from here on out.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:24:26 PM

With regards to the SG, everything  is even for the most part....  we never see Bedini actually do an odd even setup, we assume he had one when we research the Watson machine....assuming the attached image is a photo of the Watson device..   Look carefully at the magnets and see that they do not align with the coils.  As I stated before, you can engineer an offset within an even system, however, it's more complicated.... 


Other researchers, old men when Bedini was young, were exploring and or investigating odd versus even.  Check muller and adams for more information. 


Offset in an even system yields superior results to odd versus even systems, that has been my experience.


I responded out of respect,  you are aware that Tinman does not want me posting here....so....I hope I answered your question....  I will be respecting his wish from here on out.

If it is going to be responses like the above Erfinder,then please feel free to do so.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
Tinman,

Go for it! learn from trial and error while working with your device.
I would go for the Hi amp charging the battery. Buck-boost converter for conventional approach.
I think its better to use the dry cell battery like Tesla batteries.
We look forward for the big flywheel device you are making, don't listen to others,see for yourself what results you get from your build.

Will
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:54:37 PM
Ok,after some more digging,i have the words straight from the horses mouth--John him self.


Quote:
The reason is the DC motor must be off when the dis-charge occurs.
http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/bedmot2.jpg

After looking at what Tom Bearden did in the book Electromagnetics part 4, This is what I did in 1984 to make the first model 2. I knew that it must be a switching and impedance problem, I also knew allot about pulse charging systems and what they did to the lead acid storage batteries . I also knew about charging batteries with huge Capacitor Banks. I was good at this because of the Amplifiers we were building at the time.

You run into all kinds of Impedance problems and Phasing, so this was a piece of cake. I also knew about Mass weight and what flywheels did and how they stored energy. I figured that the generator could not be the normal kind because they were saying the word ENERGIZER which really means MAGNETO, but this did not answer the question of where the current came from, the Capacitor was the answer.

The MAGNETO would charge this very fast and to High Voltages some times 10 times the battery voltage. When the machine first ran it would explode the batteries if they were bad, so I put the switch S1 to control it. When the battery would get low I would switch S1 to charge the battery back up.

This was 18 years ago with what we have today this machine can be made real easy if you tinker with it and get it set right. The ENERGIZER How did I come up with this one you see in the picture. My uncle was a old time mechanic who was a real tinker, he use to tell me of the old lighting circuits just after the horse and carriage days and things that people would never believe, this is where My MAGNETO comes from. I told Jim Watson how to do this, I never thought that he would build a Machine that big but He did. and that's the story of this machine. Jim got paid off I got pushed agents the wall and told to by gasoline the rest of My life but once you see something like this you never give up.

John go's on to say--as he has many time's,that when you hit the battery with continual high current pulses,a reaction takes place within the battery that you do not get with a steady DC current.

So,the cap dump system is used,as the generator it self could not deliver such high current pulses at an instant. The caps are charged by the magneto over time,and then all that stored energy hits the battery hard.

So we now know that the !energizer! is just a magneto,and the schematic he supplied in the link is of his V2-->but he seems to have left out the FWBR.
I would also move S1 to a position before the cap,so as you do not get an over voltage in the cap when S1 is open.

What is a magneto

Quote: a small electric generator containing a permanent magnet and used to provide high-voltage pulses.

Well,this is exactly what we will have with my setup.
The high voltage pulses will come from the cap,that is charged by the magneto.

High voltage pulses can be obtained from a magneto in many different ways--spring loaded rotors that flip from one spot to another fast,while the shaft remains at a constant speed--EG,automotive magneto's,or by coil shorting,such as the small magneto i have on my bench that was used to make the telephone ring back in the 30's.
Johns version stores the charge from the magneto into a capacitor,and then a switching mechanism dumps that high voltage charge into a battery.

The only difference between what my setup will be,and the schematic John supplied above,is we will be using an electronic switching circuit,instead of the commutated switching John used in his V2 machine.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 02:23:12 PM
Ok,after some more digging,i have the words straight from the horses mouth--John him self.


Quote:
The reason is the DC motor must be off when the dis-charge occurs.
http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/bedmot2.jpg (http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/bedmot2.jpg)

After looking at what Tom Bearden did in the book Electromagnetics part 4, This is what I did in 1984 to make the first model 2. I knew that it must be a switching and impedance problem, I also knew allot about pulse charging systems and what they did to the lead acid storage batteries . I also knew about charging batteries with huge Capacitor Banks. I was good at this because of the Amplifiers we were building at the time.

You run into all kinds of Impedance problems and Phasing, so this was a piece of cake. I also knew about Mass weight and what flywheels did and how they stored energy. I figured that the generator could not be the normal kind because they were saying the word ENERGIZER which really means MAGNETO, but this did not answer the question of where the current came from, the Capacitor was the answer.

The MAGNETO would charge this very fast and to High Voltages some times 10 times the battery voltage. When the machine first ran it would explode the batteries if they were bad, so I put the switch S1 to control it. When the battery would get low I would switch S1 to charge the battery back up.

This was 18 years ago with what we have today this machine can be made real easy if you tinker with it and get it set right. The ENERGIZER How did I come up with this one you see in the picture. My uncle was a old time mechanic who was a real tinker, he use to tell me of the old lighting circuits just after the horse and carriage days and things that people would never believe, this is where My MAGNETO comes from. I told Jim Watson how to do this, I never thought that he would build a Machine that big but He did. and that's the story of this machine. Jim got paid off I got pushed agents the wall and told to by gasoline the rest of My life but once you see something like this you never give up.

John go's on to say--as he has many time's,that when you hit the battery with continual high current pulses,a reaction takes place within the battery that you do not get with a steady DC current.

So,the cap dump system is used,as the generator it self could not deliver such high current pulses at an instant. The caps are charged by the magneto over time,and then all that stored energy hits the battery hard.

So we now know that the !energizer! is just a magneto,and the schematic he supplied in the link is of his V2-->but he seems to have left out the FWBR.
I would also move S1 to a position before the cap,so as you do not get an over voltage in the cap when S1 is open.

What is a magneto

Quote: a small electric generator containing a permanent magnet and used to provide high-voltage pulses.

Well,this is exactly what we will have with my setup.
The high voltage pulses will come from the cap,that is charged by the magneto.

High voltage pulses can be obtained from a magneto in many different ways--spring loaded rotors that flip from one spot to another fast,while the shaft remains at a constant speed--EG,automotive magneto's,or by coil shorting,such as the small magneto i have on my bench that was used to make the telephone ring back in the 30's.
Johns version stores the charge from the magneto into a capacitor,and then a switching mechanism dumps that high voltage charge into a battery.

The only difference between what my setup will be,and the schematic John supplied above,is we will be using an electronic switching circuit,instead of the commutated switching John used in his V2 machine.


Brad



Know a thing by what it does.....  The energizer is nothing more than a magneto, magnet, coil, points....  energizer, magnets, coil, BJT..... 


vindication.....  this was pointed out on page 3.....useless babble my ass.... 


unfortunately you are still missing the point....  the layout is wrong.....  the magneto must become a motor.....


the capacitor discharge path which includes the charge battery, is through through the magneto, specifically through the very same inductor which charged the cap.  I will demonstrate this, however, I will not provide any diagrams I just want it to be known that it can be done!  If you want to do it, figure it out like I had to...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 12, 2017, 02:31:32 PM
@all

Biggest mistake of the Bedini thingy is the diameter of the Energizer/Generator coil wheel seems slightly greater then the flywheel so any drag on those coils will be transferred to the shaft tenfold. Leverage is the most neglected factor in our rotating machines and cannot be compensated by fancy switching. So if the base design is faulty, the total design will not work.

So.... instead of let's say a 24 inch generator wheel, you used 3 or 4 smaller diameter generator wheels on that same shaft? Now the leverage of the flywheel will always be greater then the breaking leverage of the drag causing generator coils.

But guys will not think about their designs in advance. They will just jump in blindly thinking that "REPLICATING" someone  elses mistakes will produce a different result.

wattsup

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 02:43:19 PM


vindication.....  this was pointed out on page 3.....useless babble my ass.... 


unfortunately you are still missing the point....  the layout is wrong.....  the magneto must become a motor.....




Quote
the capacitor discharge path which includes the charge battery, is through through the magneto, specifically through the very same inductor which charged the cap.

No where dose John mention that the magneto is put into a motoring phase,nor that the discharge from the cap ,go's through the magneto coils.

Johns own diagram also dose not show this-see below.

Quote
  I will demonstrate this, however, I will not provide any diagrams I just want it to be known that it can be done!  If you want to do it, figure it out like I had to...

Yes,i know how to do that already.
But neither John or the diagram calls for that.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 03:34:09 PM
No where dose John mention that the magneto is put into a motoring phase,nor that the discharge from the cap ,go's through the magneto coils.


no brad its not mentioned in the diagram, dig like you did before and find that I am right!


[/size]Johns own diagram also dose not show this-see below.

Yes,i know how to do that already.
But neither John or the diagram calls for that.


Brad

if you knew his work, you would have identified it just like I did........ you would know that he superseded his old shit.....

you're too close minded for your own damn good....I offered to make a demonstration but after this post see that there is no point.....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 04:10:34 PM

no brad its not mentioned in the diagram, dig like you did before and find that I am right!




you're too close minded for your own damn good...

Quote
if you knew his work, you would have identified it just like I did........ you would know that he superseded his old shit.....

But it is his old !shit! that i wish to replicate,not some super seeded model.
I wish to build the one depicted in Johns schematic.

Quote
.I offered to make a demonstration but after this post see that there is no point.....

If you wish to show me,then that would be appreciated.
If you dont wish to show me,then that would be understandable.

If what you have is not related to the machine i wish to build(the one depicted in the schematic i posted),then there is not much point wasting your time doing so.

If it is related to the V2,then by all means--im all ears and eyes.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
@all

Biggest mistake of the Bedini thingy is the diameter of the Energizer/Generator coil wheel seems slightly greater then the flywheel so any drag on those coils will be transferred to the shaft tenfold. Leverage is the most neglected factor in our rotating machines and cannot be compensated by fancy switching. So if the base design is faulty, the total design will not work.

 Now the leverage of the flywheel will always be greater then the breaking leverage of the drag causing generator coils.

But guys will not think about their designs in advance. They will just jump in blindly thinking that "REPLICATING" someone  elses mistakes will produce a different result.

wattsup

Quote
So.... instead of let's say a 24 inch generator wheel, you used 3 or 4 smaller diameter generator wheels on that same shaft?

Well thats not very good math Wattsup.

So now the generator wheels are 1/4 the size,but we have 4 times as many.
This means--no loss/no gain.

You just made 3 left turns,and ended back where you started from :D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 04:16:24 PM
But it is his old !shit! that i wish to replicate,not some super seeded model.
I wish to build the one depicted in Johns schematic.

If you wish to show me,then that would be appreciated.
If you dont wish to show me,then that would be understandable.

If what you have is not related to the machine i wish to build(the one depicted in the schematic i posted),then there is not much point wasting your time doing so.

If it is related to the V2,then by all means--im all ears and eyes.

Brad


do your thing..... we aren't on the same page, I couldn't agree with you more, there is not much point wasting my time here with you....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 12, 2017, 05:09:02 PM
Well thats not very good math Wattsup.

So now the generator wheels are 1/4 the size,but we have 4 times as many.
This means--no loss/no gain.

You just made 3 left turns,and ended back where you started from :D

@tinman

Wrong. This means you can now load those generator coils and the true full leverage of the flywheel can be used to cut through the drag generated. No drag no output. It's just a question of where do you want to fight the drag, near the shaft or on the outer edges. The full rotational energy is exerted on the central shaft, not on the outer edges.

The other misnomer in his design. Generator coils in series will produce high voltage. But to keep the battery charged, anything above 14vdc and 20% of the battery amps rating will be wasted because the battery simply cannot use it. High voltage low amps on the battery will just eventually render the battery a reactive source that will have no or little amperage available and eventually die.

The first thing you need to do on such a project is to produce a battery baseline otherwise you are just winging it. Use a standard trickle charger and charge the battery until it shows charged at xx volts. Then run any 12 volt device with the battery and see how long it takes for it to fall to 11 vdc. Never let the battery go below 10.5 vdc. Then run your bedini thingy until the battery reaches the same charged voltage level which will be very quick with those high volts. Then do the same DC load test and see how long it now takes for the battery to fall to 11vdc. You will see that the later will take minutes. The bedini farce is thinking reactive battery charge has value, but it does not.

Once you do that, you will quickly realize that those generators coils are better off stay all in parallel or some in series to get the 12-14vdc charge voltage then those sets paralleled to increase the amperage charge. That will balance out the system to be totally complimentary to battery.

wattsup

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 12, 2017, 05:24:40 PM

I responded out of respect,  you are aware that Tinman does not want me posting here....so....I hope I answered your question....  I will be respecting his wish from here on out.

Thank you for your curtesy, and the mention of the magnetic offset.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 12, 2017, 05:36:30 PM
Thank you for your curtesy, and the mention of the magnetic offset.


You're welcome.....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Redward on November 12, 2017, 05:54:40 PM
Looks that acceleration under load is coming back. Thane Heins has replicated one of romerouk old generators.

romerouk version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7e6Lu_YSCo&t=222s

Thane Heins Oct 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vQ7t3A9oc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 06:55:47 PM
This is the Youtube video made by the guy who said he got his build based on the Watson motor
to self run:

Bedini Machine aka Watson Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdiK8sb81XU


From what I understood, he said that once the motor was up to speed, he switched out the
start battery and he said the device was powering itself and charging the battery at the same time.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 04:30:10 AM
This is the Youtube video made by the guy who said he got his build based on the Watson motor
to self run:

Bedini Machine aka Watson Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdiK8sb81XU


From what I understood, he said that once the motor was up to speed, he switched out the
start battery and he said the device was powering itself and charging the battery at the same time.

So i wonder what happened,as that was back in 2012.

I also think we can get the machine to run a little smoother than that one.

I see a lot of voltage measurements,but no current or total P/in P/out measurements.

There is no follow up video's after this one on his channel,so i suspect that it did not end up working as he thought it was.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 05:45:46 AM
Ok,first video on the build is up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXanuYHVrcE


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 06:04:38 AM
Dose any one know what part that is in the schematic below?.



Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: penno64 on November 13, 2017, 07:14:18 AM
Ampmeter

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 13, 2017, 11:36:38 AM
Ok,first video on the build is up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXanuYHVrcE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXanuYHVrcE)


Brad


If you change the magneto from the style depicted, this no longer qualifies as a replication.... 

and for the record....the magneto in johns diagram doubles as a motor... now I know what you're thinking, assuming you are considering what I'm saying, "the induced is higher than the applied"....  I entertained that very same thought and through careful observation was brought to the profound conclusion that it doesn't matter.... 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 13, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
Dose any one know what part that is in the schematic below?.

Brad


It's clear he wasn't really interested in proper measurement, if you watch any of the old videos from back when this schematic was drawn, he really didn't know how to make proper measurement....neither here nor there... with that said we can rule out any sort of meter... 


What we know is that he's dumping caps into batteries, we are provided with suggestions regarding their capacity and voltage prior to being dumped..... all that to say this....maybe, just maybe, if rumors regarding batteries exploding when hit with high voltage cap dumps are true, maybe that circle with the arrow in it is a variable resistor.  Throw away some of that energy before it gets to the battery...... yeah...that's what I would have done if I were in his position back in 84......
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:13:49 PM
Ok,this is the first spin up,so as we can check voltage and frequency.

The whistling Gypsy  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDlOLtvISo

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:35:39 PM

 

 

Quote
If you change the magneto from the style depicted, this no longer qualifies as a replication....

As i state in my next video(just posted),if you think there is an operational difference between the one i am using,and the one John was using,then please provide details of the difference.

Quote
and for the record....the magneto in johns diagram doubles as a motor... now I know what you're thinking, assuming you are considering what I'm saying, "the induced is higher than the applied"....  I entertained that very same thought and through careful observation was brought to the profound conclusion that it doesn't matter....

I have given this some thought,and can think of a couple of different ways to achieve a motoring action from the magneto.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:40:26 PM

It's clear he wasn't really interested in proper measurement, if you watch any of the old videos from back when this schematic was drawn, he really didn't know how to make proper measurement....neither here nor there... with that said we can rule out any sort of meter... 


What we know is that he's dumping caps into batteries, we are provided with suggestions regarding their capacity and voltage prior to being dumped..... all that to say this....maybe, just maybe, if rumors regarding batteries exploding when hit with high voltage cap dumps are true, maybe that circle with the arrow in it is a variable resistor.  Throw away some of that energy before it gets to the battery...... yeah...that's what I would have done if I were in his position back in 84......

John states in that quote i posted a few replies back,that the switch was there so as he could turn off the battery charging cycle when the battery voltage got to high.

It would be nice to have a complete schematic,if you think the one he supplied was incomplete--missing the bits that turn the magneto into a motor at some point of each cycle.

It's hard to make an exact replication,when people keep saying thats not the whole circuit,but they too cannot provide the whole circuit--nor can it be located anywhere on the net.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 13, 2017, 02:34:57 PM
As i state in my next video(just posted),if you think there is an operational difference between the one i am using,and the one John was using,then please provide details of the difference.

incredible....  you do what you want and get to call it a replication....

[/size]I have given this some thought,and can think of a couple of different ways to achieve a motoring action from the magneto.

Brad


I'm sure you have....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 02:45:47 PM
incredible....  you do what you want and get to call it a replication....


Unless you or anyone else can !show! or !prove! that my magneto works any different than the one John show's,then it is a replication.
Both are PM magnetos.
Both have coils that the magnet pass.
Both output an AC current.
Both are series connected.

The only difference is,mine produces a higher frequency.

So many times we here--oh,you need a special this,and a special that.
And so many times,those that make this claim,can provide no details what so ever as to what is so special about the bits required,or why they have to be that exact design.

Here,with you,we have that very same situation.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 13, 2017, 02:47:10 PM
John states in that quote i posted a few replies back,that the switch was there so as he could turn off the battery charging cycle when the battery voltage got to high.


and....  doesn't take away from using a variable resistor...

[/size]It would be nice to have a complete schematic,if you think the one he supplied was incomplete--missing the bits that turn the magneto into a motor at some point of each cycle.


sooo....it's acceptable when you add a cap, or a full wave bridge to the schematic, or change the style of magneto, but when I say something, it's questioned.....  there's nothing missing for turning the magneto into a motor...it's all right there, you just can't see it, it's hard to believe you have been playing with this stuff for years...!

[/font]It's hard to make an exact replication,when people keep saying thats not the whole circuit,but they too cannot provide the whole circuit--nor can it be located anywhere on the net.

Brad


I beg the differ, there's nothing complicated about building the magneto like it was drawn.  "YOU" chose to do things your way, basing your decision on past experience with like pole systems, bad move. 


this is going to end just like the zero force and dyna motor replications....

Excellent craftsmanship....that is a well balanced machine.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 13, 2017, 03:00:17 PM
Unless you or anyone else can !show! or !prove! that my magneto works any different than the one John show's,then it is a replication.
Both are PM magnetos.
Both have coils that the magnet pass.
Both output an AC current.
Both are series connected.

The only difference is,mine produces a higher frequency.

So many times we here--oh,you need a special this,and a special that.
And so many times,those that make this claim,can provide no details what so ever as to what is so special about the bits required,or why they have to be that exact design.

Here,with you,we have that very same situation.


Brad


Brad.......Brad....  it's a special magneto....  just because you say it's not doesn't mean it isn't!  Here's the best part, his way is "the" way, a lesson was to be learned, you are passing up on an opprotunity....   your years with pulse motors using like poles should have prepared you.....they didn't.....  instead of revisiting what you may have missed, you now and then insist that the inventor was an idiot, and proceed to perfect that which you obviously don't get..... comprehending nothing....  I know this because I made the same mistake!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 13, 2017, 04:53:50 PM
Unless you or anyone else can !show! or !prove! that my magneto works any different than the one John show's,then it is a replication.
Both are PM magnetos.
Both have coils that the magnet pass.
Both output an AC current.
Both are series connected.

The only difference is,mine produces a higher frequency.

So many times we here--oh,you need a special this,and a special that.
And so many times,those that make this claim,can provide no details what so ever as to what is so special about the bits required,or why they have to be that exact design.

Here,with you,we have that very same situation.


Brad

In the large drawing, doesnt it seem funny that the energizer coils are all in series, all N pole mags and for a portion of the rotation the energizer charges the DC cap?? ???   Where is the rectifier???  ;) It seems to me that the energizer is possibly putting out a chain of DC pulses. Asymmetrical induction of the series coils, and the way the coils are made......   Id say Erfinder is right and that energizer portion needs to be the way it needs to be....

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 13, 2017, 05:39:03 PM
Hi Guys.

Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )   

Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 13, 2017, 10:46:37 PM
Hi Guys.

Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )   

Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

Cheers Graham.

Well there are a few factors involved that would require testing before the full build. Is the back plate that holds the coils magnetic like the poles. Bifi? Dont know on these, nor how the windings ends would be configured. Phase of the offset magnets as to when the switch is closed to send the cap charge to the battery. It may be a sequence thing if asymmetrical as to have the first coil in the series line at tdc of a rotor magnet, and then the next is at tdc with its magnet and so forth. Asymmetrical setups, the coils can be sequentially induced more than 1 time each per half of the rotation of the whole, havnt looked at it close enough to say yet, but Id bet that each coil series run through for the switch on time could be 3 to 4 passes before the switch opens.  Had a lot of playing with asymmetrical with my MMM magnet motor. 9 switching stators and 10 rotor mags. In 1 revolution of the motor, the stators switched 90 times sequentially.

What the energizer does during the switch open time Im not sure of. This older looking circuit doesnt look at all like the energizer is connected to the motor when not charging the cap.


Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:37:46 AM
Hi Guys.



   



Cheers Graham.

Quote
Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

Regardless if all poles are the same or not,you still get an AC current and voltage output from the coils.

Quote
On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )

Yes they do,and this drops the efficiency of the coils output,as it bias's the core to the same field that the magnet is trying to induce into it.
Years of bench testing has shown that you want the coil firing the opposite field to that of the magnet. So,if you have all north facing out of the rotor,you want the coil pulsing a south field,which means that it is in attraction mode--not repulsion mode as stated by JB.
If the coil is pulsing a north field out,you want all magnets on the rotor with there south field out.
The worst possible combination is with the magnets facing north out,and the coil also pulsing a north field out,and visa versa with south fields-->attraction mode is the most efficient.

Quote
Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

I have just finished reading the PDF,along with many other references to this machine,and no where is there mention of bifi wound coils.

Also,no where in any of the PDF,schematics provided by JB him self,or any other source,dose it state that the energizer has a motoring action,or at any time is it in series with the motor and batteries.

It is clearly stated in all the information gathered so far,that the motor is !!disconnected!! from the battery when the energy from the caps is dumped into the battery.

There is no FWBR in Johns schematic shown,because each coil has it's own FWBR,which is on the coil it self.

Jim Watsons machine had 7 ring magnets,and 8 coils,where as Johns machine had 6 coils,and 6 magnets--with no offset between the magnets and coils.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:45:01 AM

Brad.......Brad....  it's a special magneto....  just because you say it's not doesn't mean it isn't!  Here's the best part, his way is "the" way, a lesson was to be learned, you are passing up on an opprotunity....   your years with pulse motors using like poles should have prepared you.....they didn't.....  instead of revisiting what you may have missed, you now and then insist that the inventor was an idiot, and proceed to perfect that which you obviously don't get..... comprehending nothing....  I know this because I made the same mistake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJm0ZyPMps
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: david1969sulivan on November 14, 2017, 03:51:13 AM
This guy has a few vids and this one in particular he just made is interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoE6xzYnw0s
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 09:06:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJm0ZyPMps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJm0ZyPMps)


What amazes me is that you know....  What saddens me is that you don't know you do....  it's like I said before, your years of experience with like pole systems were supposed to prepare you for what we are discussing right now, this video reveals your lack of knowledge, it doesn't help your case.


I had a wonderful exchange with Mags a few days ago, among other things, we discussed the significance of the a principle you demonstrate but don't comprehend (not going to tell you what, but if he watches your video, a few words from me and he will know exactly what I am referring to).  It blows my mind, watching you perform the experiment, and fail to comprehend its significance....


On another note...  the magneto is a motor....  the fact that you cannot see this is a sign that you are winging this whole thing....  The years you spent bashing and correcting John while using concepts he inspired would have been better spent in silent contemplation and reflection on what was being provided....  had you gone that route, you would see more than you do....  I will share proof from the horse's mouth that the magneto is a motor with Mags.....  no point sharing that info with you...


Mags.....where are ya....we need to talk....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 10:14:46 AM

What amazes me is that you know....  What saddens me is that you don't know you do....  it's like I said before, your years of experience with like pole systems were supposed to prepare you for what we are discussing right now, this video reveals your lack of knowledge, it doesn't help your case.


I had a wonderful exchange with Mags a few days ago, among other things, we discussed the significance of the a principle you demonstrate but don't comprehend (not going to tell you what, but if he watches your video, a few words from me and he will know exactly what I am referring to).  It blows my mind, watching you perform the experiment, and fail to comprehend its significance....


On another note...  the magneto is a motor....  the fact that you cannot see this is a sign that you are winging this whole thing....  The years you spent bashing and correcting John while using concepts he inspired would have been better spent in silent contemplation and reflection on what was being provided....  had you gone that route, you would see more than you do....  I will share proof from the horse's mouth that the magneto is a motor with Mags.....  no point sharing that info with you...


Mags.....where are ya....we need to talk....

Cool

With all this wonderful insight,and your willingness to share with Mag's,you 2 should have a self runner in no time flat

I mean,how many times have we heard the same old thing?
How many claim that those that try,and dont see the results promised,are doing it wrong--they just dont understand,and thats why they fail.

How many times have we !not! seen a self running machine from those that accuse others of not knowing what they are doing?.
How many devices have been presented by those that say they know it all,that actually work as claimed?

I will tell you how many--None,nada,zip.
Not one single self running,self charging device has ever been presented by anyone (including you) ,that can self run ,and self charge the run battery to a higher energy content than what it started with-->NOT ONE.

You may keep playing as much as you like with what !you! think is correct,and i will keep using my equipment to see what is truth right there on my bench.

Yes,you can show Mag's what you !want! him to see--but you will never show the device as a whole,nor will you show anyone how it work as claimed.

No point in showing a wheel being spun at a slow speed,charging a cap to 1000 v in half a turn,while keeping the rest of the setup under covers--we can all do that.

So,i'll stick to what i see before me,and you keep on doing what your doing.

Remember-->those that claim others have it wrong,are the very same people that have nothing to show for them self-->sad.but true.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 10:36:44 AM
Cool

With all this wonderful insight,and your willingness to share with Mag's,you 2 should have a self runner in no time flat

I mean,how many times have we heard the same old thing?
How many claim that those that try,and dont see the results promised,are doing it wrong--they just dont understand,and thats why they fail.

How many times have we !not! seen a self running machine from those that accuse others of not knowing what they are doing?.
How many devices have been presented by those that say they know it all,that actually work as claimed?

I will tell you how many--None,nada,zip.
Not one single self running,self charging device has ever been presented by anyone (including you) ,that can self run ,and self charge the run battery to a higher energy content than what it started with-->NOT ONE.

You may keep playing as much as you like with what !you! think is correct,and i will keep using my equipment to see what is truth right there on my bench.

Yes,you can show Mag's what you !want! him to see--but you will never show the device as a whole,nor will you show anyone how it work as claimed.

No point in showing a wheel being spun at a slow speed,charging a cap to 1000 v in half a turn,while keeping the rest of the setup under covers--we can all do that.

So,i'll stick to what i see before me,and you keep on doing what your doing.

Remember-->those that claim others have it wrong,are the very same people that have nothing to show for them self-->sad.but true.


Brad


What did I say....only the ignorant chase OU.....


you don't hear me saying anything about OU.....you on the other hand...  don't worry your pretty little head about what I am sharing with Mags.....  he will see what you can't, he will know what you don't... you have no idea how refreshing it is to be able to sit through your presentation and know that you have no idea what you're talking about, even better than this is when you can point out the flaws, and share these insights with a like mind is its own reward...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 11:02:09 AM

What did I say....only the ignorant chase OU.....


you don't hear me saying anything about OU.....you on the other hand...  don't worry your pretty little head about what I am sharing with Mags.....  he will see what you can't, he will know what you don't... you have no idea how refreshing it is to be able to sit through your presentation and know that you have no idea what you're talking about, even better than this is when you can point out the flaws, and share these insights with a like mind is its own reward...

So lets put it to the test--your insight,your knowledge.

Lets say that i now have my machine up and running,with the generator i chose to use.

We get the machine up to running speed,and then we switch over to the circuit below.

What happens next ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 11:12:59 AM
So lets put it to the test--your insight,your knowledge.

Lets say that i now have my machine up and running,with the generator i chose to use.

We get the machine up to running speed,and then we switch over to the circuit below.

What happens next ?




I don't care! 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 11:15:16 AM



I don't care!

Lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:00:08 PM
A question for all.

Ok,i have redrawn the schematic,and will explain a little further.

Lets say the generator is a low 70% efficient.

The device is started with the switch in position A

The current is 8 amp's,and the voltage is 24 volt's.
So the power being sent to the motor is 192 watts.
Lets say the motor is 80% efficient,and so the mechanical output from the motor is 153.6 watts.
Our generator is only 70% efficient,and so we would only get 107.5 watts out of our generator,from the 192 watts being consumed by the motor.

The generator is required to produce 8 amp's @ 10 volt's=80 watts
This 80 watts is only 74.7% of the output the generator can deliver for the given P/in

So,the motor is started with the switch in position A,and when up to running speed,the switch is switched to position B

The question is-->what happens when the switch is switched to position B?


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 14, 2017, 02:32:34 PM
That is brilliant Brad!  When I first looked at your schematic I didn't look at it closely.  I just assumed you were connecting the output in parallel with the batteries.  Now that you added the switch I looked closer and realized you were connecting the output in series with the batteries.  I am thinking if you get the energizer rewired so the current is higher and the voltage lower the whole system will speed up and maybe go into a run away condition.  Or possibly use a step-down transformer to get higher current at lower voltage and keep the current down in the energizer itself.  I am eagerly awaiting your results.

Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 03:04:27 PM
 author=citfta link=topic=17491.msg513063#msg513063 date=1510666354]

Quote
That is brilliant Brad!  When I first looked at your schematic I didn't look at it closely.  I just assumed you were connecting the output in parallel with the batteries.  Now that you added the switch I looked closer and realized you were connecting the output in series with the batteries.
Carroll

Quote
I am thinking if you get the energizer rewired so the current is higher and the voltage lower

Already done  ;)

Quote
Or possibly use a step-down transformer to get higher current at lower voltage

I was thinking about going that way,but the transformer is just another loss.

Quote
the whole system will speed up and maybe go into a run away condition.




Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:06:16 PM
What did I say....only the ignorant chase OU.....
you don't hear me saying anything about OU.....

Hi Erfinder. I have been following this thread, and I am kind of at a loss as to what
you are up to here. You act like you have these claimed motor/generator OU devices all
figured out, yet you offer absolutely nothing concrete and useful to help Tinman except taunts and insults.  :o

The title of this thread is 'Confirmation of OU devices and claims'. If you believe all OU claims
are 100% false, you could have said that in one comment and there would be no need for you
to comment any further in this thread. All I see from you so far is childish comments trolling Tinman. 
If you want to share something useful, then share it. If you don't want to share anything useful, then why are
you commenting here?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 04:52:05 PM
Hi Erfinder. I have been following this thread, and I am kind of at a loss as to what
you are up to here. You act like you have these claimed motor/generator OU devices all
figured out, yet you offer absolutely nothing concrete and useful to help Tinman except taunts and insults.  :o

The title of this thread is 'Confirmation of OU devices and claims'. If you believe all OU claims
are 100% false, you could have said that in one comment and there would be no need for you
to comment any further in this thread. All I see from you so far is childish comments trolling Tinman. 
If you want to share something useful, then share it. If you don't want to share anything useful, then why are
you commenting here?


How about you define useful, do so without asking for schematics, measurement data, or demo model plans...  what you and many others consider useful ain't useful... 


Where is your useful contribution....  all I see is a individual kissing up to and cheerleading for the guy he believes is disseminating what he considers useful information.. 


This is not a replication, it stopped qualifying as such when Tinman took it upon himself to change the magneto, and mix concepts illustrated on the diagrams he found.  A second battery has been added, and the cap is now series as opposed to parallel like we find it in the source diagram....WTF....  this is what's going for a replication?!?  Individuals like yourself accept this proudly..... when the tests fail to deliver what all hoped it would, after the audience is schooled on proper measurement gathering techniques....  he will use his signature , "Bedini Rubbish" line and all of you agree with him.....   


What am I doing here....if only you had ears to hear.....


Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
So,the motor is started with the switch in position A, and when up to running speed, the switch is switched to position B
The question is-->what happens when the switch is switched to position B?

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.

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.
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.

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.

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 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.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:57:36 PM
How about you define useful, do so without asking for schematics, measurement data, or demo model plans...  what you and many others consider useful ain't useful... 
Where is your useful contribution....  all I see is a individual kissing up to and cheerleading for the guy he believes is disseminating what he considers useful information.. 

This is not a replication, it stopped qualifying as such when Tinman took it upon himself to change the magneto, and mix concepts illustrated on the diagrams he found.  A second battery has been added, and the cap is now series as opposed to parallel like we find it in the source diagram....WTF....  this is what's going for a replication?!?  Individuals like yourself accept this proudly..... when the tests fail to deliver what all hoped it would, after the audience is schooled on proper measurement gathering techniques....  he will use his signature , "Bedini Rubbish" line and all of you agree with him.....   

What am I doing here....if only you had ears to hear.....

 :o Ok, it is clear you have nothing to contribute except pretense and hot air...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 05:07:36 PM
:o Ok, it is clear you have nothing to contribute except pretense and hot air...


you have no idea....  keep cheerleading...it suits you...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 05:39:44 PM
Hi Tinman,

Further regarding the one second charge window:
During the one second window where the battery is disconnected from the motor and it is
being charged, it appears you should actually get multiple charge pulses going to the battery.

You will have the huge current discharge pulse from the cap bank discharge when the relay is
switched on to discharge the cap bank into the battery, but the generator is still connected to the cap bank
and batteries all through this one second charge window, so besides the big current discharge pulse from
the cap bank discharge into the batteries, the generator is still sending continuous charge pulses to
both the cap bank and battery while the relay is engaged for the whole one second charge window.
So you should have a full second of charging pulses going to the cap in parallel with the battery during the
one second charge window. Lindemann estimated about 1,865 charge pulses per second coming from
Watson's large Bedini machine.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 05:47:19 PM
Erfinder
Quote
All Agree
end quote.

a bit Presumptive in a room full of builders .

it "should " be noted, all ideas/opinions are considered [still very much so]...and it should also be noted redundant builds would  be a waste of very limited resources .

respectfully
Chet
ps
a note to Void
your video mentioned earlier
attempts are being made to follow up on the invitation to Carroll [to see that DUT







 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 05:52:13 PM
It is not a self runner, but it could be scaled up.
No big effort or investment needed, just a few hours of time and some parts from junk...

Perhaps somebody want try it :)

With one core you get 50 micro watts, with 10 or 20 core you probably can blink a LED...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 06:02:06 PM
Erfinder
Quote
All Agree
end quote.

a bit Presumptive in a room full of builders .

it "should " be noted, all ideas/opinions are considered [still very much so]...and it should also be noted redundant builds would  be a waste of very limited resources .

respectfully
Chet
ps
a note to VIOD
your video mentioned earlier
attempts are being made to follow up on the invitation to Carroll [to see that DUT


all opinions and ideas are not considered....  I wasn't speaking for you....all, those who know, know you aren't a builder...


how very coy ramset, classifying a supposed replication, and copies of the supposed replication redundant!  I haven't asked you and your investor connects for an audience, don't assume I don't have something to show, I got more than what you're chasing in this thread...... 


I call this thing you are supporting here a waste of money...but as it's not my money, you have my support....waste as much as you like.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:21:11 PM
Erfinder
investor contacts

please embellish us with that info ?? please don't hold back !!

you have my written permission to post all you know here about that statement
I am most curious...

a statement  like that cannot go unanswered at an open source forum

and the fact is all I do is build, I just do not like wasting resources here or anywhere else.

Chet Kremens
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 06:28:43 PM
Erfinder
investor contacts

please embellish us with that info ?? please don't hold back !!

you have my written permission to post all you know here about that statement
I am most curious...

a statement  like that cannot go unanswered at an open source forum

and the fact is all I do is build, I just do not like wasting resources here or anywhere else.

Chet Kremens


what info? 


I'd like to see your work....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:35:18 PM
Erfinder
exactly
there is no info to back up your statement about audiences with my investment contacts !

there are none and never have been

what has taken place in the past .[By Dr.Steven Jones Group]

inventors who make claims of 0U have been offered Donations to open source from
Angel donors with no strings or investment attached.

 open sourcing is the only criteria.

no investors
   no patents

Donors
Open source
[Key words]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 06:39:39 PM
exactly
there is no info to back up your statement about audiences with my investment contacts !

there are none and never have been

what has taken place in the past .[By Dr.Steven Jones Group]

persons who make claims of 0U have been offered Donations to open source from
Angel donors with no strings or investment attached.

 open sourcing is the only criteria.

no investers
Donors
Open source [Key words]


there it is....  what did I say....don't twist it.... "I have not asked for an audience with your "investor contacts".....  you read into the statement, thinking the worst of me......  but like a good sport, you filled in the blanks...  changing what could have been interpreted as an assumption gone wrong into.... damn... Chet has contacts.... vindication...  let's not continue this.... 


I repeat... I'd like to see your work....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 06:39:48 PM
It is not a self runner, but it could be scaled up.
No big effort or investment needed, just a few hours of time and some parts from junk...
Perhaps somebody want try it :)
With one core you get 50 micro watts, with 10 or 20 core you probably can blink a LED...

Hi vasik041. If it is not a self runner, then unless you can explain here in brief and simple terms
what specifically makes you think it is OU, and briefly how you have measured the input power versus
the output power, then it will be hard for people to assess. People may not want to spend time
reading through a long PDF file if they don't even know first what it is you are claiming it does
that is unusual.

I have found that testing at really low power levels will always leave way too much room for the
possibility of measurement error and oversights. If it is not a self runner, then most likely it would
need to be producing a clear and significantly much larger output power than the input power to
generate much interest. Unfortunately really low power setups have just too much potential to show
misleading results unless you can get it self running.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:57:17 PM
Erfinder
Quote
I haven't asked you and your investor contacts for an audience,
end quote

whats to read into ??

its a false, purposely misleading  statement .

Others who seek investors for business find this "Donor" idea suspicious.
 
I build things for children with disabilities [not toys]
to help them and their families cope with the hardship of their daily lives.
we all do what we can to help our fellow man.

and yes I have built here and elsewhere over the years ,its hard to put down one set of tools
and pick up another when the need is soo great .

its not all about "investor's" there really are good people out there
that just want to make a difference and "give" to the right cause .

these are the Donor's which Dr.Jones has contacted in the past.

a reminder this is an open source forum.
and I would sooner hack a limb off than get in-between a life saving tech
and the world that needs it 

with a price tag...

EDIT
to comment below

its just the truth

and you provoked this ... and assume way too much.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 06:59:17 PM
Erfinder
Quote
I haven't asked you and your investor connects for an audience,
end quote

whats to read into ??

its a false, purposely misleading  statement .

Others who seek investors for business find this "Donor" idea suspicious.
 
I build things for children with disabilities [not toys]
to help them and their families cope with the hardship of their daily lives.
we all do what we can to help our fellow man.

and yes I have built here and elsewhere over the years ,its hard to put down one set of tools
and pick up another when the need is soo great .

its not all about "investor's" there really are good people out there
that just want to make a difference and "give" to the right cause .

these are the Donor's which Dr.Jones has contacted in the past.

a reminder this is an open source forum.
and I would sooner hack a limb off than get in-between a life saving tech
and the world that needs it 

with a price tag...


you're a soul warming soul.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:09:35 PM
Ramset, Tinman:

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

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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 07:13:58 PM
Erfinder

Soooo
you need a Donor ?



only criteria is open source ?
no business interests of any kind [from Angel Donors]

reading your comments over the years
I know you have put huge blocks of your life  into this ,My response above was for me !
not meant as judgment of others and their needs or responsibilities.

 
I expect a strong response [but will not clog this thread any further ....

 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
Quote
People may not want to spend time reading through a long PDF

Unfortunately as an explanation I can offer only even longer PDF... and if 4 pages is too long... probably it does not help anyway.

 :-X
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
I expect a strong response here....

Hi Ramset, you are free to do as you want if this is your thread, but maybe if you two guys took
your 'discussion' to PM it would be less disruptive to the topic currently at hand? ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 07:19:24 PM
Void
sorry for the intrusion
I have nothing but appreciation for those who help here.

respectfully
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:19:38 PM
Unfortunately as an explanation I can offer only even longer PDF... and if 4 pages is too long... probably it does not help anyway.
 :-X

Many people here are quite limited in free time. ;) I don't see why you shouldn't be able to post
a brief description about what specifically you think is unusual with your setup. :) Just a few lines
to say what you think is happening that you think is unusual or notable.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 14, 2017, 07:33:33 PM
Erfinder

Soooo
you need a Donor ?



only criteria is open source ?
no business interests of any kind [from Angel Donors]

reading your comments over the years
I know you have put huge blocks of your life  into this ,My response above was for me !
not meant as judgment of others and their needs or responsibilities.

 
I expect a strong response [but will not clog this thread any further ....


nah....I'm good....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 07:44:13 PM
Many people here are quite limited in free time. ;) I don't see why you shouldn't be able to post
a brief description about what specifically you think is unusual with your setup. :) Just a few lines
to say what you think is happening that you think is unusual or notable.

Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.

Thank you for your time :)



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on November 14, 2017, 07:54:24 PM
Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.

Thank you for your time :)

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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:59:30 PM
Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.
Thank you for your time :)

Hi vasik041. Thanks for the summary. :)

I did browse quickly through your PDF, but the main potential problem I see is there
really is too much room for measurement error and outside influences such as electrical/EM background noise
skewing results at really low power levels like that. I have seen what appears to be very interesting effects at
low power levels as well in different setups, but I have found that what can appear to be OU at very low power levels
may well not hold up when scaled up to higher power levels. Other people here might be interested to look into
your setup further however.

Edit: Oh, I see 'NR' means negative resistance...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 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 (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 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0)

Hope it helps somebody.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman 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 (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 (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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 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.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin 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


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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?


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin 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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 15, 2017, 08:12:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc)


You're the man Mags!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 11:30:28 AM
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

Quote
Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'.

You may have a surprise coming your way  ;)

As to the rest of your post--it is very simple,as i stated in my last post.

The exact circuit will be used,and my circuit i posted was nothing more than a question--which you must have missed.

As for the energizer--you provide exact's,and i will build to those exact's.

What is the energizer?
It has a rotor with magnets that pass a bunch of coils on a stator
6 magnets,and 6 coils.
The coil core's are made from soft iron bolts-->this is the V2 we are talking about here.
The coils are hooked in series,and are half wave rectified,so as current only flows once the magnets are leaving the core.
In Bedini's V2,he used a 12v fan motor from a car-a PM motor which PL says is no good--so who do we believe.

As i said,what advantage would Bedini's energizer have over my very well built generator,that has laminated core's,which would have far less eddy current loss than a solid iron core.
It has machine wound coil's,unlike the energizer with it's hand wound coil's.

I can half wave rectify my generator exactly as John did.

It's all well and good to make the big shout about it being all wrong,but you must be able to back it up with why it's wrong,and followed by what is right.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 12:35:31 PM
Some facts that some of you may not want to hear.

Here is a couple of statements from John Bedini that he made in his 1984 book-Bedini's Free Energy Generator.
Quote: The waves we want to generate,are like those from old DC generators.

Quote: I have run some test's in my lab,and discovered that certain types of energizers,generator's,and alternators do what we need.

Quote:Below is a picture of John next to one of his !working! prototypes in the early 1980's

What do you know,the energizer looks nothing like the one in his 1984 schematic  ::),and has no flywheel,and yet still is a working machine,in that it self charges the battery.

How is the low drag energizer made?

Well,here it is,straight from there books.

The theory is this.
We only draw current from the coil's after the magnet has passed the coils,and not before.

Reason for this-->It is the Bedini's camp belief that if you only draw current from the coil after the magnet has passed the coil,you get less drag from the energizer than you would if you collected the current from the coil before the magnet reaches the center of the coil.

In other words,if the top half of the wave form is the magnet approaching the coil,and the bottom half of the wave form is the magnet leaving the coil,we should only pull from the bottom half of the wave form,as pulling from the top half of the wave form will create more drag  ::)

Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.

If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.

Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 15, 2017, 12:54:48 PM
Hi All.

John Bedini talked a lot about “ tuning “ .....

In the 1984 sketch I see an LC tank circuit, there’s even an arrow through the capacitor symbol.

I can’t elaborate on this further without a build, I must try and get into the workshop.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Erfinder on November 15, 2017, 12:58:48 PM
Some facts that some of you may not want to hear.

Here is a couple of statements from John Bedini that he made in his 1984 book-Bedini's Free Energy Generator.
Quote: The waves we want to generate,are like those from old DC generators.

Quote: I have run some test's in my lab,and discovered that certain types of energizers,generator's,and alternators do what we need.

Quote:Below is a picture of John next to one of his !working! prototypes in the early 1980's

What do you know,the energizer looks nothing like the one in his 1984 schematic  ::) ,and has no flywheel,and yet still is a working machine,in that it self charges the battery.

How is the low drag energizer made?

Well,here it is,straight from there books.

The theory is this.
We only draw current from the coil's after the magnet has passed the coils,and not before.

Reason for this-->It is the Bedini's camp belief that if you only draw current from the coil after the magnet has passed the coil,you get less drag from the energizer than you would if you collected the current from the coil before the magnet reaches the center of the coil.

In other words,if the top half of the wave form is the magnet approaching the coil,and the bottom half of the wave form is the magnet leaving the coil,we should only pull from the bottom half of the wave form,as pulling from the top half of the wave form will create more drag  ::)

Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.

If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.

Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.


Brad


.....it only took ten pages for the discussion to transition from a piss poor replication into a full blown debunking...  congratulations!



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 01:43:43 PM
 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....
Quote
.it only took ten pages for the discussion to transition from a piss poor replication into a full blown debunking...  congratulations!

Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found  ;)

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  :D--Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 01:46:39 PM
author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513113#msg513113 date=1510702689]
.





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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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


Brad

Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick?  Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results. Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here. 

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry. :-X ;)   



Gota git to work.

Mags

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....
Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found  ;)

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  :D --Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad

Ive read you have read a pdf. Is that it? Can you post it here? I could not seem to find it here after you said you read it through..

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 02:06:59 PM

I'll send you a care package if you want....all books, all videos, old and new.... you know how to reach me.

Cool. Thanks.   I do want what he has so as to be on that same page with him if that is going to be his reference. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 02:12:32 PM
Unless of course,the voltage across the caps and motor was at a higher potential than the two supply batteries voltages combined.

Hi Brad. If the cap bank is in series with the battery (or batteries) it will not charge
the batteries no matter what its voltage is.


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.

If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.


Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.
If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.
Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.

The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine
where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini.
When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew
Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:25:48 PM
Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick?  Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

 Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here. 

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry. :-X ;)   



Gota git to work.

Mags

Quote
I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results.

If that were the case,then why would i be wasting my time and money?
$60.00 already for the correct coupling and bushes.

As for the rest of your post,i now have in front of me exact building plans and a complete description of the device--and how it works.
So,there will be no more--your building it wrong bullshit.

And why do i call it bullshit?--because JB him self states that it can be a home built energizer,a DC generator,or an AC alternator--it is only the wave that we are after.
Guess what that wave is ?--a half wave rectified DC--thats it--his word's along with the wave form needed.

There is no special wave form,no motoring effect from the energizer as Erfinder claims.

It is all about the effects taking place within the lead acid battery--the pulse charging effect.

The battery-->a 12 amp hour motorcycle battery
The motor--> a G.E permanent magnet motor--1100rpm 1/12hp--or 62 watts
Quote: Permanent magnet motors are used due to there high efficiency-->so that eliminates Peter Lindermanns bullshit about having to use a series wound motor.
Coils-->6x 200 turns awg20 wire.
Coils are all in phase,and hooked in series,then half wave rectified on the trailing wave.
6x soft iron bolts as the cores.
6x magnets--early type neo's--all north facing out
Magnets bonded to aluminum disk/rotor
The two commutator brushes must be adjustable,so as fine tuning can be done.

It is also clearly stated that the size of the machine has no effect on it's operational function,and so can be scaled as needed.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:31:07 PM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513138#msg513138 date=1510751552]


Quote
If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.

I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Quote
The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine
where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini.
When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew
Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.

I would think that this the case,as it was John that designed the switching circuit for Jim.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 02:38:47 PM
I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor.
They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance
capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 15, 2017, 02:40:44 PM

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.


Mags

Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post.  I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad.  He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed.  It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original.  In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged.  I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others.  I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas.  If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:53:29 PM
Dear Erfinder

Your post's are now being removed.

You are no longer welcome in this thread--my thread.

So please start your own thread,if you wish to prove us wrong,by building a working Bedini machine,and presenting it to the members of this forum.


Cheers


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:56:12 PM
Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor.
They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance
capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.

Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:58:07 PM
Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post.  I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad.  He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed.  It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original.  In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged.  I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others.  I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas.  If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Respectfully,
Carroll

I think mags took my circuit as the one i was going to use in my replication.
He may have missed the bit about it being only a thought experiment.

The thought experiment being
-If the motor began to speed up when the switch was switched to position 2,then the generator would also start to produce more power,which in turn would cause the motor to speed up even more--and so the cycle continue's.

If this was the case,then the motor would be receiving more power than the batteries are delivering to it.
Would this be a true power amplifier ?.

Just a thought experiment that we could have tried along the way,with very little modification needed for the experiment.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 03:38:46 PM
Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.
Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.

Yes, they may not 'absorb' the current pulses equally, but because they are
all in parallel they will all still 'see' the same pulses coming from the energizer. This was
my point. The battery is still going to be subjected to pulses from the energizer when the
cap bank and battery are in parallel. 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 03:49:30 PM
The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'.  What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...


All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 04:21:31 PM
Dear Erfinder

Your post's are now being removed.

You are no longer welcome in this thread--my thread.

So please start your own thread,if you wish to prove us wrong,by building a working Bedini machine,and presenting it to the members of this forum.


Cheers


Brad

Well Ive said what I wanted to, just to make the point on what actual replications are suppose to be. I wont post here anymore either. You can delete my posts also if you like.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 05:31:07 PM
One more thing..

Sorry Carrol for putting up what you said as an example of what Im stressing for accurate replications. If we think as professionals on these things, then we should all be on board with trying to replicate to the best of our abilities to get the best base line as possible if we are going to really investigate these things seriously. People use to analyze and dissect videos to find clues as to if a claim was faked. Like  there was this crazy guy Mylo that was claiming he had a Howard Johnson motor going and made vid after vid. Tk would point out the mr hand movements off camera that he did to keep the rotor going while aiming the camera at another portion of the device as diversion. Then the guy did other vids on glass dining room tables and shows getting up on the table and walking over it to try to prove there were no 'strings' attached, whatever.
Some viewers looked into the vids like it was CSI and found the fishing line loop going to the motor under the couch cushion that was driving the rotor. But we dont see that level of investigation these days. If we are serious about all this, and we should be, then we should be very detail oriented and not trying to idealize what is happening or what we think may be a better idea before we produce as best a replication as possible and study that first as a base line. Like the depictions show 1 battery. Then why change it to 2 in series?? There is no good reason to make any changes of what we can see of the build. Like we could look at some of the items in the photos that we can use as a reference as to size of things that we have no data on. People used to do that in the Whipmag days. I dont see that anymore.

So Id like to see everyone that gets involved to put those kind of efforts into these replication projects so there can be a straight up conclusion in the end. We are putting our selves up as judge and jury with this stuff. I think free energy is a serious enough thing that we should look at it as if the claimers life is on the line in order to get to the honest truth. Otherwise if the investigation is tainted or handled with initial bias, then the end results may not be felt as conclusive.

And what you said in the other thread about resonance. I get what you mean. Like I could just say that we get some advantages to the LC ringdown. But that ring down frequency is called what?  Would it be called its resonant freq?  I think so. Speakers have Fs or some call it Fo and it is the resonant freq of the speaker itself. Or reed switches, they have a resonant freq spec also, something that you want to stay away from in typical use for switching. So Ill change how I talk about that subject when it is not just a constant resonant reaction to a constant input or signal, like the speaker boxs are. ;) But I still think there are advantages to the ringing one way or the other.

Mags


 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 15, 2017, 08:40:06 PM
Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there. ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 15, 2017, 09:33:12 PM
Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there. ::)

Hi Jeg.

Now you're talking!!

So, what would happen if we have the capacitor across the coil? Would its charging affect the operation of your statement above? Or do we close the switch onto the capacitor and coil at the maximum?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 15, 2017, 10:32:34 PM
Hi Graham :)
 It will be charged as normally, but needs to be discharged before loosing its charges if it is not to use diodes.

(i erase that as wrong assumption)

regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 16, 2017, 10:34:00 AM
Tuning the cap/coil to magnet revolutions per second seems to be to our advantage.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'.  What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...


All the best...

John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 16, 2017, 02:06:20 PM
John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad

Indeed. And having studied this early device you can see how John morphed it towards a motor/generator like the SSG.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 16, 2017, 02:14:09 PM
John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.
Brad

Hi Tinman. Keep in mind I was quoting John Bedini who was commenting on the Watson machine...

Edit:
Here is some info I found on Jim Watson's demonstration at the Tesla Symposium in 1984:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-energizers-1/
"Bedini’s demonstration was followed by Jim Watson, a research scientist living in Colorado Springs.
Watson presented two working devices similar to John Bedini’s. The smaller device was running during
Watson’s entire presentation and the audience could verify that the battery was being recharged constantly.
The larger device, which weighed 800 pounds, was demonstrated only for 10 minutes due to practical reasons.
During this time a constant load of 12kw could be withdrawn from the device. The device itself was powered by
two 12v car batteries. Jim sold us all out, and I have moved on to other things."

It sounds like Jim Watson didn't demonstrate either device very long, with the big machine only running for ten minutes.

I also read that the theory of where the OU is coming from in these Bedini setups is supposedly to do with shaking
up the ions or something like that in lead acid batteries, and supposedly causing the batteries to charge up in some
very unusual way.  In that case it seems the cap discharge pulses that you send to the battery wouldn't have to equal
the power the battery is supplying.  Power-wise it can apparently be less, and somehow if you get things 'tuned' right
the battery will supposedly stay charged up fully. So it seems there is some mysterious 'tuning process' involved in there
that you have to fiddle with to get the OU battery charging mode to occur. It seems this mysterious tuning process
to get the magic OU battery charging effect is what people have been having problems succeeding at.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 16, 2017, 03:55:08 PM
@tinman

Oh boy. Is it not hard enough just to keep time for bench works but then having to put time on responding to such conversations makes it hard to work so I just don't know how you do it for so many years now. Full respect to you man.

So, just by the specs of your chosen main components as rated voltage, amperage, rpm for their standard operational mode, I will know if you have a chance or not. Standard components are made for specific tasks so if you can run them in their standard rpm ratings, you can expect a certain result. If in theory the stator is too small to send back what the dc motor needs, then stop and choose a better match. Don't do anything before you have that. The system flywheel can be hand turned to start it up. You want your battery rating to be around 2 volts below the gen rectified output. Do not forget that the 2 volts needs to be there while the stator is under drag. 20% of the battery amperage rating should equal the charge amperage available. No more. If not matching you may otherwise have to step up to charge the battery and hold enough amperage but that will cause drag that will lower rpm BUT increase torque. You know. When you increase rpm you decrease torque that pulls less drag that produces less amps output. All this is very standard EE. So once you have found that greatest balance of standard components, then you can start playing the control but before then, don't put one more minute on any mismatched toys. All your time is precious so choose well from the start. I have come to realize that most experiments are already checkmated by the low level of consideration given too component matching. Could say more if interested.

Last point on the act of replicating. Don't. Why would you want to replicate the same undisclosed methods and mistakes of the past because they promise something extra? Is your present intellect not good enough to tackle the puzzle of OU. @Erfinder says "replicate". hahaha. It's like saying "Flunk like the last guy". You have grown your brain for the challenges of today and not to replicate the errors of the past. In most cases, you can do mind experiments or small sectional bench experiments to test past notions without going through the tedious task of precise replication of something that has NEVER been proven to be OU.

Last last point. There is one force available to all that requires nothing electric, magnetic, electronic, inductive, capacitive, reactive, etc. It's called mechanical leverage and if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU. In terms of leverage, a dc motor sharing its shaft with a flywheel and a generator wheel is the worst mix possible even in Bedinis time, regardless of the control method then required to make up for the drag on the generator wheel exterior that will push back tenfold on the dc motor shaft. Sooooooooooooo........ You all should know enough by know about all these subjects that you should be able to work your mind bench at full width of effects so that all you will ever want to build is your own eureka moment device. Then you can post it before you build and ask for devils advocates to cut it down. If they can, then either modify it or dump it. Go to the next eureka idea and the next  until all sides of effects are first considered and worked out in the mind before you deploy it on a build. Imagine how much terrain you will cover in the same time frame.

No leverage, no drag, no output.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 16, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
The Rotor.   :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2017, 10:54:23 PM
A continuous output of 12 kW for ten minutes, eh? At 120 volts, that would require a current of 100 amps. I'd like to see the wiring and connectors of this machine, and the load bank used to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2017, 10:59:16 PM
Quote from: wattsup
...if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU.

Wattsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !! 

(Corrected misattribution, sorry about that  :-[   )
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 16, 2017, 11:19:22 PM
Nice rotor Grum.  ;D

Tk, which post are you quoting me from?

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 16, 2017, 11:22:19 PM
A continuous output of 12 kW for ten minutes, eh? At 120 volts, that would require a current of 100 amps. I'd like to see the wiring and connectors of this machine, and the load bank used to demonstrate it.

Hi TK. I don't know where they got that 12 kW figure from, but from a picture of the large device
it appears it only had the generator on it that was used to charge up the cap bank which was
used to pulse the batteries. There was no mention of what if any load was connected during the
10 minute demonstration, and whether mechanical or electrical.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 04:39:18 AM

Quote from: Mags
<blockquote>...if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU.</blockquote>

Magsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !!



Again, which post are you quoting me from Alsetalokin??

This is how I will refer to you from here on in. ;)

Magsie ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 17, 2017, 05:01:26 AM


Again, which post are you quoting me from Alsetalokin??

This is how I will refer to you from here on in. ;)

Magsie ;)

Perhaps just a mix up between you and wattsup Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 17, 2017, 05:06:41 AM
The Rotor.   :)

That was fast Grum lol.

Now we have all the specs,there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:20:51 AM
Perhaps just a mix up between you and wattsup Mags

Perhaps.

Perhaps Alsetalokin should do quotes like regular folk so others or the quotee can refer to it directly and not have to go back through 10 pages to see where it came from.

Perhaps if he had done so then he wouldnt have per happenstance had thought it was my words before posting

Perhaps he doesnt have to follow MileHigh in pm and refer to me a Magsie as MH calls me there all the time and just today again.

Perhaps it might seem odd that I would say such a quote when I have stated quite a few times in recent months that I am aware of motors and speakers and other things that are 90% eff and better to 100% eff.

Perhaps.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:33:02 AM
Hi TK. I don't know where they got that 12 kW figure from, but from a picture of the large device
it appears it only had the generator on it that was used to charge up the cap bank which was
used to pulse the batteries. There was no mention of what if any load was connected during the
10 minute demonstration, and whether mechanical or electrical.

All the best...

Perhaps 12kv is much more believable figure than 12kw. 

It should be a lot easier to figure out how to get 12kv from the machine you see than 12kw. ;)

Set the whole bedini machine next to a 12kw motor or gen. What would you think then?

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:38:52 AM
Perhaps.

Perhaps Alsetalokin should do quotes like regular folk so others or the quotee can refer to it directly and not have to go back through 10 pages to see where it came from.

Perhaps if he had done so then he wouldnt have per happenstance had thought it was my words before posting

Perhaps he doesnt have to follow MileHigh in pm and refer to me a Magsie as MH calls me there all the time and just today again.

Perhaps it might seem odd that I would say such a quote when I have stated quite a few times in recent months that I am aware of motors and speakers and other things that are 90% eff and better to 100% eff.

Perhaps.

Mags

Sorreeeeeee. Yes, I got mixed up about who said what. Please accept my apologies. I corrected the offending post up above.

"You don't have to call me Waylon Jennings...."
--David Allan Coe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkKn5HrKgHQ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
That was fast Grum lol.

Now we have all the specs,there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.


Brad

But what thread will you put on them? What head? What grip length, what threaded portion? Matching soft iron nuts, or what? Do you know the thread spec of Bedini's soft iron bolts?  There's a big difference between M6 and 3/8-16. Or hex head vs. socket-head capscrews. Etc.

Wrong thread or head = inexact replication. Therefore doomed to fail.

Right?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:44:58 AM
Ok then.

But perhaps......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:50:16 AM
Perhaps 12kv is much more believable figure than 12kw. 

It should be a lot easier to figure out how to get 12kv from the machine you see than 12kw. ;)

Set the whole bedini machine next to a 12kw motor or gen. What would you think then?

Mags

Perhaps it is. But then it becomes much less remarkable, no? After all I can produce 12 kV with a device the size of a golf ball or even smaller. And a big heavy "energizer" machine with most of that in the flywheel weight should certainly have no problem making 12 kV for ten minutes without running down the batteries or even producing a noticeable decrease in flywheel speed. 

So does the remarkable claim for the Big Bedini just boil down to a typo, where some reporter mistakenly put 12 kW when actually should have put 12 kV?

I mean, people do make mistakes now and then, don't they Wa...er... Mags?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:52:03 AM
But what thread will you put on them? What head? What grip length, what threaded portion? Matching soft iron nuts, or what? Do you know the thread spec of Bedini's soft iron bolts?  There's a big difference between M6 and 3/8-16. Or hex head vs. socket-head capscrews. Etc.

Wrong thread or head = inexact replication. Therefore doomed to fail.

Right?

Perhaps you should try a bunch of different ones and see if there is a difference.  ;)

Perhaps your post is just a knock on me and my thorough replication posts and there actually wouldnt be much if any noticeable differences that would matter. ;)

Whatever Al

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 06:05:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE

Seriously, the issue of how "exact" to get during a replication is a gnarly one. The persons skilled in the art should be able to tell what is truly important and what is not, or would be interested in finding out through experiment as you suggest. Soft iron bolts? Right there one becomes suspicious because a soft iron bolt is about as useful as spaghetti suspenders or a jello frisbee. But OK, we've all encountered less-than-Grade 3 crap that breaks or strips when you put any torque on it. And how could thread pitch possibly matter, one asks oneself. But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough. We've all seen this happen many times. Even though those claimants and complainants cannot do it themselves, they still think they can tell other people how to do it.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 07:07:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE)

Seriously, the issue of how "exact" to get during a replication is a gnarly one. The persons skilled in the art should be able to tell what is truly important and what is not, or would be interested in finding out through experiment as you suggest. Soft iron bolts? Right there one becomes suspicious because a soft iron bolt is about as useful as spaghetti suspenders or a jello frisbee. But OK, we've all encountered less-than-Grade 3 crap that breaks or strips when you put any torque on it. And how could thread pitch possibly matter, one asks oneself. But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough. We've all seen this happen many times. Even though those claimants and complainants cannot do it themselves, they still think they can tell other people how to do it.


"But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough."

Ok, well lets just stick to the subject of should it fail to perform. ::)

What if someone does it straight up and it does not fail?
 
Do you think that the builders should veer from trying to be as 'close as possible'? Is that a good strategy?

Mags


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 07:27:02 AM
Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.

I didnt ignore it. I saw it before. Im not going to entertain a hypothetical based all on negatives. If I had a company and and you worked for me in this field and you talked like this all the time I pull a Trump and 'Your Fired'! I would want people that are not indulging in the negative before things begin. I would want people that are excited and have a positive outlook about this work. Thats not you.  But, continue on. That was my hypothetical return. :P

Sorry Brad. Didnt mean to muddy it up here.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 17, 2017, 03:16:00 PM
Wattsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !! 
(Corrected misattribution, sorry about that  :-[   )

@TinsieKoala

You can take those surface values to mean what you want. A motor may be 80% efficient at turning a fan but that same motor may be 40% efficient in turning a loaded OU device working against real drag. That's why I am saying that by properly using leverage in these builds it provides another input source for the electric forces. Besides you can have a 90% efficient motor or generator but still be 500% away from making anything OU with it.

@Grumage and @all

Nice wheel. So your wheel magnets have a lifting power of how many pounds? What are the dimensions of the magnets? The small center hole means you will mount it at the end of a shaft of what diameter? So this is a fixed six magnet wheel a fixed (x) magnet strength and a fixed (y) distance from axis.

So again I go back to my last post. Of the millions of possible combinations of magnet size, strength, wheel diameter, number of magnets, etc, can we maybe understand why you chose this fixed combination.

OK, then the next step is pick up coils or other means of coupling. The variables are tremendous and at any point in this choosing of your next fixed values, each future decision could either help or hinder the overall outcome. I am not trying to be a pessimist here. Just trying to outline in such works where we usually go wrong because the fact is taking assumptions as reality pushes each of us to build things in the way we do, each step we take closes off future variables until we are squeezed into a small range of possibilities and outcomes.

Where does an OUer really start the R&D process? Does it start at the drive motor? If the total device includes a drive motor then maybe that is the first place to stop and investigate. So you take any drive motor. You make a magnet wheel but now, instead of fixing a distance from axis you make a way of being able to change the distance from axis against a fixed iron core coil. The question is "With this drive motor is there an ideal magnet size, strength and distance from axis that will enable the particular drive motor to both cut through drag and maintain speed? If that first question is not answered by stand alone R&D then this just started on the wrong footing.

What I am trying to say without sounding pessimistic or negative to all efforts is this. With many people having the ability to do concerted R&D into OU, is it not better to divide the myriad of variables into smaller parts, investigate each part on its own before deciding how to put it all together in the best manner possible.

In a perfect world of multi effort R&D is it not better for one person to do one part of the investigation as completely as possible while another does another part and so on so all can learn from the smaller tests how the bigger picture can come together.

So should the magnet wheel be produced first or only after one knows the loaded rpm of the drive motor and the desired frequency of the output that will be fed back to the drive motor as a loop? Or do you start with the pick up coil variables finding out what rpm and frequency will produce the desired output and amperage, to then know which drive motor and how to build the magnet wheel? What comes first? There has to be a logical method of R&D or any of these factors just "guessed" will change the totality of the outcome and become more of a lottery draw then a well thought out process.

I am convinced that with multiple talents on this forum, if all could be coordinated into one major effort, the growth of knowledge towards cause/effect would be tremendous, instead of this solo, slap together whatever and try it out however method that never works and leaves you with more questions then answers. I mean, are most of you not tired of these circular dead end results?

I can expand on what is required if guys want to embark on a real R&D mission which should always be first to learn and then discover the small nuances before you can master their combining forces and from the looks of it, many here already have the base prerequisites and wherewithal. Just remains to be seen if people can really work together and commit to one cause.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 04:26:16 PM
Now we have all the specs, there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.

Hi Brad. Bedini used to recommend using a certain type of welding rod for the coil cores:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-monopole-generators/
"For the coil, just use an old solder roll or a bobbin you get wire on, cut and fill the center hole with .030 welding rod . This works really well."

Some people have mentioned R45 or R60 welding rods, but in 2010 Bedini mentioned the following:
http://www.energeticforum.com/122754-post623.html
"Also the welding rods have changed from the time I first started using them, the iron retains a magnetic bias in the new material, not good."

Bedini also mentions in this same comment that he never uses neo magnets as they can saturate the core if they are too strong.
I am not sure if that also applies to this type of energizer setup as well however:
"I will state this again I never use Neo magnets with these motors because they do saturate the cores I do not want that at all. If you saturate the core then you must use a lot of current in the system I do not want that either."
This might only apply to a different Bedini setup, such as Bedini's monopole trifilar wound generator.
Neo magnets might be fine in this type of setup.

I have seen some people in the past mentioning using 'iron garden wire' to make soft iron cores, 
but I am not sure if it is suitable. For example, I think they may mean this type of wire:
https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Heavy-Green-Coated-Training/dp/B00VKMIGMQ/

Otherwise soft iron rod may be suitable if you can find some.
However, Lindemann stated that Jim Watson used 'steel bolts' for his coil cores in both
of his machines, so, if that is accurate, then it may not be that critical.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 04:38:10 PM
Dear wattsup.

For me personally the use of the @ symbol I find mildly offensive. Grumage, Grum or just plain Graham will do nicely.   :)

To answer your initial questions the rotor made from Polycarbonate measures 168 mm diameter and is
9.5 mm thick. The centre hole is 8 mm. I’m intending to use a 10 mm diameter Silver Steel shaft with the end turned down to suit the disc. I have a pair of 6000 C3 bearings to support the assembly.

The magnets are old Neodymium measuring 15 mm by 4 mm and can just hold 900 grams of Steel billet.

More information to come as my build progresses.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 05:10:05 PM
For me personally the use of the @ symbol I find mildly offensive. Grumage, Grum or just plain Graham will do nicely.   :)

Hi Grumage. Some people put the '@' symbol in front of a name to help draw attention that this portion of the
comment is directed to a specific person. There is nothing offensive intended when people use the '@' symbol
like that. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
Hi Grumage. Some people put the '@' symbol in front of a name to help draw attention that this portion of the
comment is directed to a specific person. There is nothing offensive intended when people use the '@' symbol
like that. :)

Dear Void.

Well perhaps it’s my age or just plain old fashioned, I don’t particularly like it. My problem, I guess.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 05:42:59 PM
I wonder if transformer laminates are more appropriate (as I have many of them).
I also salvaged an electric screwdriver and took out its 18V 1800RPM motor. I'll report its performance even I have spotted an old AC universal one. Looks like it can be converted for dc input operation. 

My question guys is what are you going to use as for the heavy iron disk? Is anything other except of a car that can be salvaged??
 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 06:17:49 PM
Hi Jeg.

This is one of the areas of conjecture, I’m rather lucky as I have many different cast Iron flywheels to choose from. But what size/weight, 20 Lbs is quite a mass? Are we looking to just carry the drive motor over the off period of the commutator? Would 14 Lbs be ok?

Now whilst we’re in “ contemplation mode “  :)

How many previous tinkerers actually used a “ wet “ Lead acid battery for the device. I know I didn’t. Could there be a difference at the “ Ionic “ level? It’s the Ionic reversal that was supposed to be the MO according to what I’ve read.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 08:09:18 PM
Hi Jeg.
This is one of the areas of conjecture, I’m rather lucky as I have many different cast Iron flywheels to choose from. But what size/weight, 20 Lbs is quite a mass? Are we looking to just carry the drive motor over the off period of the commutator? Would 14 Lbs be ok?
Now whilst we’re in “ contemplation mode “  :)
How many previous tinkerers actually used a “ wet “ Lead acid battery for the device. I know I didn’t. Could there be a difference at the “ Ionic “ level? It’s the Ionic reversal that was supposed to be the MO according to what I’ve read.
Cheers Graham.

Hi Grumage, Jeg.  I have been reading up on it in the last week, and I don't recall coming across
anything where Bedini stated anything specific in regards to the flywheel size.  As near as I can
tell, you want a flywheel that is big enough to keep everything up to speed during the 'time windows'
where the motor is off and the cap bank is discharging into the battery. Whether there is any advantage
to having an even larger flywheel can probably only be determined by experimentation at this point.
I have attached a blurry photo taken from 'Bedini's Free Energy Generator' 1984 PDF in case it helps. :)

Since Bedini seems to have indicated that his solid state battery pulsing chargers also have a
COP > 1, I am going to try to put these general battery pulsing principles that are used in various Bedini
setups to the test, since it is quite simple to setup. I have been wondering why Bedini spent so
many years on motor/generator setups rather than just focusing on pulsing batteries with simpler soild
state circuits. Maybe rotating a mass adds some 'gain' into the equation, or maybe there are other reasons,
but I haven't come across anything specific yet as to why Bedini focused so much on motor/generators.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
Void, Grum
Thanks for the help, just to mention that in flywheels diameter comes first and weight is after as of an importancy.
In the meanwhile, I found a good source for cheap rotors of many different sizes.

 https://www.google.gr/search?q=cutting+wheels&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9-cuuscbXAhWEvRoKHcfeCUMQ_AUICigB&biw=1093&bih=602&dpr=1.25
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 17, 2017, 08:59:58 PM
I wonder if transformer laminates are more appropriate (as I have many of them).
I also salvaged an electric screwdriver and took out its 18V 1800RPM motor. I'll report its performance even I have spotted an old AC universal one. Looks like it can be converted for dc input operation. 

My question guys is what are you going to use as for the heavy iron disk? Is anything other except of a car that can be salvaged??

Hi Jeg,

Universal means the motor can run on either AC or DC.  There is no conversion needed.

Depending on how big you want the flywheel to be you can probably salvage one from a small engine like from a lawn and garden tractor.  This should give you something in the range of 20 t0 30 pounds depending on the size of the engine.  Check your local small engine repair shops.  They will probably give you a few to experiment with as they usually have several dozen junk engines laying around.

Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 09:10:38 PM
 Cool Carol thanks!!! I'll search for it probably tomorrow.

About the motor i was thinking to open it and connect the field coils in series. Do you think that they are already in series? First build with motors and have some difficulties to locate and gather everything.

About the flywheel again I see two options. First is to mount the flywheel on the same axis as the rotor. But I don't feel safe when thinking a mass of that size to rotate so fast. Second option is to mount it in separate axis and divide the rotations number, but more complicated. What is your opinion on this?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 10:18:55 PM
I have been wondering why Bedini spent so
many years on motor/generator setups rather than just focusing on pulsing batteries with simpler soild
state circuits. Maybe rotating a mass adds some 'gain' into the equation, or maybe there are other reasons,
but I haven't come across anything specific yet as to why Bedini focused so much on motor/generators.

Never played with Bedini ideas. What triggered me with this replication is that it combines  many forms of energy, and looks possible to transform them in a constructive way so to counteract the Lenz effect.           
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 11:19:48 PM
Never played with Bedini ideas. What triggered me with this replication is that it combines  many forms of energy, and looks possible to transform them in a constructive way so to counteract the Lenz effect.         

Hi Jeg. Yes, battery pulse charging aside, it would seem that there still has to be something quite unusual
going on to charge up a fairly large cap bank to a fairly high voltage in a short enough amount of time
without consuming too much power to do it. I guess that may be why a motor and flywheel
and special energizer combination is used, and may well be why John Bedini spent so much time
experimenting with that kind of setup.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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.