Cookies-law

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

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82007
  • *Latest: EB62

  • *Total Posts: 493061
  • *Total Topics: 14499
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 145
  • *Total: 149

Facebook

Author Topic: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device  (Read 188025 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #480 on: June 16, 2016, 06:28:00 PM »
Here is the basic premise for my explanation for why battery A discharges more quickly:  We know that the lighter the load on a battery, the more energy that you can extract from that battery.

The reason for this is that when a battery drives a load power is dissipated in the internal battery resistance and in the load.  The larger the load resistance is compared to the internal battery resistance, the more efficient the power transfer is, and therefore you can extract more energy from the battery.

The key to this is that the inverter draws current from the set of batteries as a very short spike of current.  The spike may be so short that it is easily affected by other circuit elements.  My theory is that the spike of current is not identical in battery B.  There is some stray or inherent inductance and capacitance in the setup such that battery A outputs a relatively sharp spike of current, but battery B's output is low-pass filtered and as a result the spike is spread out over time.  That means there is a lower current flow over a longer time in battery B and that translates into less losses to internal resistance in battery B and/or a more efficient exporting of energy from battery B.

Below you will see a simplified example done just to get a handle on things and the numbers do add up.  I also make an assumption to give me better numbers.  I make a "battery B-prime-prime" where I assume that the internal resistance of the battery is non-linear with respect to current draw, and the lighter the current draw, the lower the internal resistance.  Of course you can easily measure battery internal resistance vs. current draw and find out for yourself.

Here is what I come up with in a nutshell in a very simple model:  Battery A outputs the current pulse that goes into the inverter.  Battery A gets it's energy from the current pulse from itself, and from a capacitor that is between the two batteries.  After the current pulse is done, then battery B charges up the capacitor much more slowly and sluggishly.  That slow charging of the capacitor is a more efficient process. (see the numbers below)

Note:  In my crunching notes below in ny conclusion I reverse the order and say that battery B charges up the capacitor first.  It really makes no difference and you can look at it either way.

The net result is this:  For every current pulse, battery A loses more energy to internal resistance than battery B.  There are millions of current pulses so over time battery A discharges faster than battery B.

Number crunching:

Battery A-prime:  12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime:  12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime-prime:  12 volts, with 0.5 ohm internal impedance

Battery A-prime:  Apply 5 ohm load for one second gives 2 amps for one second, 10 watts dissipated in load, 20 Joules of energy put into load.
2 watts dissipated internally, 2 Joules.total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  22 Joules, efficiency 90.9%

---------

What if on Battery B-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?

Load now looks like (11.5V/0.5A) = 23 ohms.  5.75 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23 Joules of energy put into load.
0.5 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 2 Joules total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  25 Joules, efficiency 92%

Battery B-prime is more efficient in transferring energy into load than battery A-prime.

---------

What if on Battery B-prime-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?

Load now looks like (11.75V/0.5A) = 23.5 ohms.  5.875 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23.5 Joules of energy put into load.
0.25 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 1 Joule total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  24.5 Joules, efficiency 95.9%

--------

Simplified model:  Battery B-prime-prime fills up a capacitor with 95.9% efficiency, and then Battery A-prime coupled with the capacitor discharges into the load with 90.9% efficiency.

Therefore over time Battery A will discharge more quickly than Battery B.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #480 on: June 16, 2016, 06:28:00 PM »

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #481 on: June 17, 2016, 06:47:24 AM »
Here is the basic premise for my explanation for why battery A discharges more quickly:  We know that the lighter the load on a battery, the more energy that you can extract from that battery.

The reason for this is that when a battery drives a load power is dissipated in the internal battery resistance and in the load.  The larger the load resistance is compared to the internal battery resistance, the more efficient the power transfer is, and therefore you can extract more energy from the battery.

The key to this is that the inverter draws current from the set of batteries as a very short spike of current.  The spike may be so short that it is easily affected by other circuit elements.  My theory is that the spike of current is not identical in battery B.  There is some stray or inherent inductance and capacitance in the setup such that battery A outputs a relatively sharp spike of current, but battery B's output is low-pass filtered and as a result the spike is spread out over time.  That means there is a lower current flow over a longer time in battery B and that translates into less losses to internal resistance in battery B and/or a more efficient exporting of energy from battery B.

Below you will see a simplified example done just to get a handle on things and the numbers do add up.  I also make an assumption to give me better numbers.  I make a "battery B-prime-prime" where I assume that the internal resistance of the battery is non-linear with respect to current draw, and the lighter the current draw, the lower the internal resistance.  Of course you can easily measure battery internal resistance vs. current draw and find out for yourself.

Here is what I come up with in a nutshell in a very simple model:  Battery A outputs the current pulse that goes into the inverter.  Battery A gets it's energy from the current pulse from itself, and from a capacitor that is between the two batteries.  After the current pulse is done, then battery B charges up the capacitor much more slowly and sluggishly.  That slow charging of the capacitor is a more efficient process. (see the numbers below)

Note:  In my crunching notes below in ny conclusion I reverse the order and say that battery B charges up the capacitor first.  It really makes no difference and you can look at it either way.

The net result is this:  For every current pulse, battery A loses more energy to internal resistance than battery B.  There are millions of current pulses so over time battery A discharges faster than battery B.

Number crunching:

Battery A-prime:  12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime:  12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime-prime:  12 volts, with 0.5 ohm internal impedance

Battery A-prime:  Apply 5 ohm load for one second gives 2 amps for one second, 10 watts dissipated in load, 20 Joules of energy put into load.
2 watts dissipated internally, 2 Joules.total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  22 Joules, efficiency 90.9%

---------

What if on Battery B-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?

Load now looks like (11.5V/0.5A) = 23 ohms.  5.75 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23 Joules of energy put into load.
0.5 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 2 Joules total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  25 Joules, efficiency 92%

Battery B-prime is more efficient in transferring energy into load than battery A-prime.

---------

What if on Battery B-prime-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?

Load now looks like (11.75V/0.5A) = 23.5 ohms.  5.875 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23.5 Joules of energy put into load.
0.25 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 1 Joule total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended:  24.5 Joules, efficiency 95.9%

--------

Simplified model:  Battery B-prime-prime fills up a capacitor with 95.9% efficiency, and then Battery A-prime coupled with the capacitor discharges into the load with 90.9% efficiency.

Therefore over time Battery A will discharge more quickly than Battery B.

Looks to me that you have taken my explanation about the differences in combined internal resistances,and added your own spaghetti  to it. Of course the batteries have capacitance,and that is why i did the same test with the capacitors,and asked you to use capacitors instead of batteries to work it out. But once again, your automatic fail button toward me was pushed,and only because you have no idea as to what is going on--this is clearly seen in your last post.

Once again we see you ducking,and not delivering any type of theory before some one else has put there's  forward. Then the auto 'fail' button is hit. You then take there theory,word it different,add your own spagetti,and claim some sort of distorted victory.
We see you do this all the time MH,but some of what you posted above shows how i was correct in a mater on another subject--i will get to that tonight when i get home from work,but you should be carful what you post,as you are going against your self this time,and you have just proven me correct on another subject you accused me being wrong in.
What go's  around comes around.

The LED is 12volts,and it is also not polarity conscious.


Brad


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #482 on: June 17, 2016, 09:22:27 AM »
Quote
The LED is 12volts,and it is also not polarity conscious.

Can you give us some specifics about this special LED? Part number, datasheet, where you bought it, etc.

If it is "not polarity conscious" and runs on 12 volts, then maybe it has some circuitry inside, contains two actual diodes in anti-parallel, or something else of that nature. LEDs are _diodes_, hence are inherently polarity conscious, and for a white LED to run on 12 volts it will usually have at least a current-limiting resistor or a (JT-like) pulsed or buck-type power supply or regulated current-sink type circuitry along with it, or perhaps 4 diode junctions in series.

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #483 on: June 17, 2016, 09:37:05 AM »



   I can't ever say that I understand what Johan is on about.
   One thing he came up with, the quote about a fool and a
   fanatic certainly hit the nail on the head!
         John.


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #484 on: June 17, 2016, 10:37:42 AM »
Looks to me that you have taken my explanation about the differences in combined internal resistances,and added your own spaghetti  to it. Of course the batteries have capacitance,and that is why i did the same test with the capacitors,and asked you to use capacitors instead of batteries to work it out. But once again, your automatic fail button toward me was pushed,and only because you have no idea as to what is going on--this is clearly seen in your last post.

Once again we see you ducking,and not delivering any type of theory before some one else has put there's  forward. Then the auto 'fail' button is hit. You then take there theory,word it different,add your own spagetti,and claim some sort of distorted victory.
We see you do this all the time MH,but some of what you posted above shows how i was correct in a mater on another subject--i will get to that tonight when i get home from work,but you should be carful what you post,as you are going against your self this time,and you have just proven me correct on another subject you accused me being wrong in.
What go's  around comes around.

Brad

The fail was you characterizing the draw from the inverter in the form of a train of current spikes as being "inductive" as well as not properly measuring them.  The only thing people have right now is a next-to-useless aliasing pattern that "proves that the spikes exist."

There is a lot of baggage in that reply.  I simply offered up my own unique and independently thought out possible explanation for why battery A discharges before battery B.  I rejected your explanation which doesn't even make sense and put forth a possible explanation myself that had no relation to your "explanation."  And I crunched some numbers to see if at least there is some merit to my possible explanation and there is.  People are free to run with that and do tests and experiments to see if it is true or not.  I can think of all sorts of measurements that could be done with a DSO to investigate this theory as well as some simple bench tests to see if it has merit.

I would think that anybody reading your posting would be just as surprised as me about your crazy allegations.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #484 on: June 17, 2016, 10:37:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #485 on: June 17, 2016, 11:02:54 AM »
Can you give us some specifics about this special LED? Part number, datasheet, where you bought it, etc.

If it is "not polarity conscious" and runs on 12 volts, then maybe it has some circuitry inside, contains two actual diodes in anti-parallel, or something else of that nature. LEDs are _diodes_, hence are inherently polarity conscious, and for a white LED to run on 12 volts it will usually have at least a current-limiting resistor or a (JT-like) pulsed or buck-type power supply or regulated current-sink type circuitry along with it, or perhaps 4 diode junctions in series.

Sorry,looking at the LED closely,it is actually 24 volt rated--no other information about it on the can. I would say that there is Some sort of circuitry in the can,but it would have to be small.
They are close to the ones in the link below,but have the small bayonet type base. Sizes are about the same.

http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/109/MDEL586Q001-31687.pdf


Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #486 on: June 17, 2016, 11:05:23 AM »
The fail was you characterizing the draw from the inverter in the form of a train of current spikes as being "inductive" as well as not properly measuring them.  The only thing people have right now is a next-to-useless aliasing pattern that "proves that the spikes exist."

There is a lot of baggage in that reply.  I simply offered up my own unique and independently thought out possible explanation for why battery A discharges before battery B.  I rejected your explanation which doesn't even make sense and put forth a possible explanation myself that had no relation to your "explanation."  And I crunched some numbers to see if at least there is some merit to my possible explanation and there is.  People are free to run with that and do tests and experiments to see if it is true or not.  I can think of all sorts of measurements that could be done with a DSO to investigate this theory as well as some simple bench tests to see if it has merit.

I would think that anybody reading your posting would be just as surprised as me about your crazy allegations.

MileHigh

Well you have had your say,and we'll all keep that in mind.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #486 on: June 17, 2016, 11:05:23 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #487 on: June 18, 2016, 01:01:49 AM »
Just to clarify, with that original setup I had two batteries in series with a motor between them and the single battery in parallel. Splitting the positives. The inverter was connected to battery 3 in the traditional manner, and I ran loads on the inverter.


That setup ran loads 24/7 for several weeks.


I have spent 8 years of my life trying to replicate what that system was capable of, and have never been successful. That particular battery exhibited behavior I have never seen in any other battery


My original description stated that when I hooked up just the three batteries and the motor, nothing happened and my buddy and I kind of walked away and were talking about things for about 10-15 minutes when the motor suddenly started. We only had one meter so we were measuring the voltage across battery 3. It would show 24 volts. It would go down to about 18 volts and the motor would start running. The voltage across battery 3 would continue to go down to around 7 volts and the motor would stop running. The voltage on battery 3 would immediately jump to 24 volts, and the cycle would repeat itself over and over. My assumption at the time was that I needed to keep battery 3 from charging, so I connected the inverter to it and began hooking up loads. It was a 350 watt inverter and I plugged in as many loads to it as I could until it began beeping and the red light went off. I ran it for several weeks before loading it all in a suitcase to take to California to see a patent attorney. It never worked again. Karma, obviously.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
My only clue to why that battery worked is the belief that if you flip the magnetic polarity in a battery you get this kind of unlimited energy. I STILL experiment with that setup on an almost daily basis,but it has nothing to do with how we are running our present circuits.[size=78%] [/size]


Why is the original setup not being discussed???


Offline A_Giggle_For_Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #488 on: June 18, 2016, 02:10:56 AM »
The original was a trick of chemistry. Basically to replicate it you would have to find that particular set of circumstances that lead that battery to its dead state. We have tried many dead batteries in a futile attempt to replicate it. David has pallets of them and I used to and gave up. Plus a better part of the small community at energetic forums. He got it at a junk yard, who knows how old it was. He added water to it but it was agm battery.

Talk about finding a needle in a haystack.

But the good news we have seen really close to the same effect with new batteries. It actually has more to do with charging impedance forcing situation in which the ground side current charges the 2 serial batteries. DC is a LOOP. You can create an asymmetrical reaction that carries power through that entire loop.  We are currently working on just that at energetic forums. http://www.energeticforum.com/289423-post1072.html.

So basically what can happen is after the charge battery is literally full you can change the potential between the positive poles that is then emulated on the ground side forcing a change in potential on the serial batteries at the same time you are asking for more power out the positive side.  Your constantly replacing the power in the serial batteries that you are using to run loads.
Now that doesn't reduce all loss but it makes for incredibly long runs before the batteries have to be rotated or charged.

I'm not going to get into an argument about it. I have already seen the effect and I am reasonably sure in can be replicated and proven. Oscilloscope Current meters can easily see the effect once in place. Finding the right ratio to battery size for both loads and boost is the project at hand.

Hope you guys join in.

Matthew Jones

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #489 on: June 19, 2016, 10:12:46 PM »
I offer up a possible explanation for the mystery of why battery A discharges before battery B, something that I think some of you have been puzzling over for years.

And nobody has anything to say?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #489 on: June 19, 2016, 10:12:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #490 on: June 20, 2016, 06:57:58 AM »
The original was a trick of chemistry. Basically to replicate it you would have to find that particular set of circumstances that lead that battery to its dead state. We have tried many dead batteries in a futile attempt to replicate it. David has pallets of them and I used to and gave up. Plus a better part of the small community at energetic forums. He got it at a junk yard, who knows how old it was. He added water to it but it was agm battery.

Talk about finding a needle in a haystack.

But the good news we have seen really close to the same effect with new batteries. It actually has more to do with charging impedance forcing situation in which the ground side current charges the 2 serial batteries. DC is a LOOP. You can create an asymmetrical reaction that carries power through that entire loop.  We are currently working on just that at energetic forums. http://www.energeticforum.com/289423-post1072.html.

So basically what can happen is after the charge battery is literally full you can change the potential between the positive poles that is then emulated on the ground side forcing a change in potential on the serial batteries at the same time you are asking for more power out the positive side.  Your constantly replacing the power in the serial batteries that you are using to run loads.
Now that doesn't reduce all loss but it makes for incredibly long runs before the batteries have to be rotated or charged.

I'm not going to get into an argument about it. I have already seen the effect and I am reasonably sure in can be replicated and proven. Oscilloscope Current meters can easily see the effect once in place. Finding the right ratio to battery size for both loads and boost is the project at hand.

Hope you guys join in.

Matthew Jones

Im still working on the system-long runs now.
I will not be joining anyone at energetic,as i wish to have nothing to do with the fraudsters that run the forum--thieving  money from those that know no better.


Brad

Offline A_Giggle_For_Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #491 on: June 20, 2016, 09:32:30 PM »
Can't hold that one against ya. Just wanted to make sure to reach out so at least anybody over here actually working on something knows we are working over there too.

Good luck and thanks for the in depth study.

Matt


Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #492 on: June 22, 2016, 06:51:31 AM »
I am going to throw out what Matt and I believe is happening, based on what we have seen running this setup for over eight years, which includes countless measurements with scopes and meters. There is a REASON battery 2 discharges more than battery 1, and understanding that reason is the KEY to tuning this thing so that it is a self running system. Now, whether it can be a self runner with only the 3 batteries remains to be seen, but we already know that LARGER systems with more batteries CAN be self runners, and it is our belief that the boost module will allow it to happen with a small system. We see evidence of that is in many of the runs we have been doing. None of those has been in excess of six months like runs with larger systems, so we have NO experience to support that yet.


Batteries one and two are in series. So you can add their voltage together and when you put that voltage in PARALLEL with battery 3, the combined voltage of the two in series is higher than the voltage in battery 3, so it charges. Can we all agree on that??


When you add a motor, an inverter (which has a transformer in it) or a transformer into the mix between battery 2 and battery 3, you have placed it IN SERIES WITH battery 3. When the voltage that comes out of the motor, transformer or inverter (it is a PULSED voltage so it CAN be added to the voltage in battery three) You now have a voltage that is higher than the total voltage that is in the two primaries. This higher voltage is now in parallel with the two primary batteries and tries to charge them just like THEY tried to charge battery three, except down the NEGATIVE side. THAT is why battery one stays up longer. It is getting some CHARGE down the negative side. What supports this belief???


The BOOST circuit allows for proper adjustment of this voltage so that the voltage of battery 3 PLUS the boost circuit is higher, and is above the combined voltage of the primaries by the PROPER amount. BOTH batteries one and two charge. Without that proper voltage, only the battery closest to the negative side gets the charge, or at least it gets it FIRST.


I hope that makes sense.


If you are watching what is happening on the other forum, you are seeing that folks who have tuned the system correctly get both primaries to maintain charge or charge, and battery 3 to charge or maintain charge, and are still able to run small loads. I have several folks I am in communication with by email who are having these positive results. I have had the same results. It is not rocket science.

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #493 on: June 28, 2016, 03:35:49 PM »
Latest and most stable circuit.
Bob French has explained how to tune this so that you can run it for a very long time with no loss in the batteries.


His comments:
The Boost Module pots are not sensitive enough for fine adjustment...that's a problem. I had to run a 2nd Boost Module because the charge battery rose so fast that the main Boost Module (splitting the positives and powering the motor) would drop out because of low potential difference. I finally devised tuning for the 2nd Boost Module like this: I would turn both Boost Modules up to get everything running, then I would turn the 2nd Boost Module down until the main Boost Module dropped out (motor slows), then back up until the main Boot Module cuts back in (motor speeds up). This is the lowest draw on the charge battery. Now you're ready to set the main Boost Module were you want it.[/size]I also found that if the charge battery was still not charging, then turn the main Boost Module up (motor speeds up) and voila! more charging.


OK, good luck. This works. I hope that we can build larger systems that will yield usable power soon. The principle is here...what do we need to do to really capitalize on it. As you can see, everything I used was simple and of reasonable cost, BUT it was NOT just a random smattering of whatever I had laying around from failed experiments of two years ago. Use identical batteries. Don't waste you time and get frustrated.


Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6041
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #494 on: November 28, 2016, 11:09:08 PM »
David and Matt and friends have made huge strides in the last year,
David has an approx. 2000 watt unit running on about 120 watts
Continuously
the feeling is that there will eventually be no limit to the COP

repost below from here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-53.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David

Quote
 

 
Info


Just so you guys know, we have had this little generator running for a while now Matt sent me a prototype, and I built it. I have it here, and I have video of it running with inputs and outputs, but unfortunately, I have all that on my computer that is in my garage and NOT connected to the internet so it cannot be hacked. And I am out of town for a week to ten days. I have a video of it assembled and connected to the razor scooter motor here that is on my phone and I can share:

Little Gen 0001 - YouTube   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjGhXBT-6Zg

and I have another video of it running. That one is on my phone too, and I can post it if you are interested, but it has no input and output numbers.

What you need to understand is the progression that happened here. Matt built a SIMPLE two coil prototype that output over TWICE the power that it took the motor to run it, and we could recover better than 80% of the power the motor was using by running it on the 3 battery system. DEFINITELY COP>2

I replicated that small prototype and saw what Matt saw. Then I built my BIG GENERATOR. It puts out about 1,800 to 2,000 watts depending on speed. So I have to have everything nice and tight and adjusted to get the higher output.

When we saw THAT would work, Matt wanted to put out something that all of YOU could replicate that didn't cost you an arm and a leg to build. My big generator was over $700.00 just for the WIRE. That's why I have NEVER released all the details on it on this forum. It's just too expensive to build unless you BELIEVE what we are telling you and have seen it happen for yourself on your bench measured with YOUR meters.

But here is a video of the big generator running off a larger modified razor scooter motor. This video was taken by the son of my machinist and my machinist is in the video. I am not. I asked him to video it for me, since at the time, the generator was at his shop where he was doing modifications to mount the bigger razor scooter motor. Some of the coils are hooked up to run some lights, so he could show me the output. This machine was DESIGNED to put out between 120-130 volts per coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fwUI8FcWVY     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fwUI8FcWVY

So it isn't that we have built this thing and are still experimenting with what it can do. I have had my big generator running for over a year now. From time to time. It has ALWAYS had problems, and I have had to rebuild it several times to address each problem as it came up. In the video I am showing HERE, it only has ONE rotor between two sets of coils. That was a test setup. The final version has THREE rotors with two sets of coils. Greater output.

BUT, I have solved ALL those problems, and have a design that is not only pretty much bullet proof, but is FAR less expensive than what I started out with and will be cheaper for others to replicate once they see what is possible with the small prototype. Unfortunately, wire, magnets, bearings and shaft are NOT things I can save you money on, so a bigger version is still going to have a hefty price tag. I am putting the new prototype together right now. Unfortunately, the holiday cut into the middle of that, and I won't be home for a week or so. Once the new machine is up and running, I will shoot some video of inputs and outputs so you can see what it can do.

What you people have to remember is that running on the three battery system, the motor that is turning this generator is running almost for FREE between the positives. If we use just a LITTLE of the generated power to keep the primaries topped off, everything else is USABLE ENERGY.

There are 3 things that make this work.

First is the circuit we have been trying to get people to pay attention to for EIGHT YEARS now.
Second is coils on the generator that allow the motor to speed up when the generator is under load.
Third is a generator configuration where the magnetic attraction of the magnets to the coil cores doesn't put extreme stress on the motor.

I am STILL experimenting with a flywheel, but the flywheel action of the three big rotors I have seems to be enough for now.

If you look at the video of the little gen I posted, you will see a stack of wire spools sitting on my bench. That is the wire to wind the coils for the new generator. I am building it from scratch, and I actually need one more spool of wire than what is shown there. I am leaving my existing version as is, so that I can continue to experiment with it while I build the new one. The current prototype needs CONSTANT adjustment, which is why I have scrapped MOST of that design.

Dave
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditPinterestLinkedIn__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda 


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-53.html

end quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all respectful comments welcome
the fellows have this sorted and Matt will be doing an open source  info release shortly

Chet K

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #494 on: November 28, 2016, 11:09:08 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: