Free Energy  searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: bobo36us2 on January 03, 2011, 10:13:03 PM

What do you guys know about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfwiXJ8apk

What's so amazing about a video showing incorrect measurements?

What's so amazing about a video showing incorrect measurements?
Without any further explanation of that statement, I can only assume
we we're watching two different videos :)
The one I watched showed 0 watts input, 18 watts output, with a further
claim from the inventor that a 0 watt input can be maintained under ANY load condition.
Pretty basic math, ANYTHING X 0 = 0
For example:
10 X 0 = 0
225 x 0 = 0
4325 x 0 = 0
10,874 x 0 = 0
1,484,587 x 0 = yes, 0
A multiplication of zero in ANY equation will always result in a net zero, regardless of the number of variables!

No, the inventor cannot claim zero watt input with this kind of measurements. There can be conditions for zero watt input and nonzero watt output. I have shown that in a simple circuit due to natural asymmetry in electrical systems. But the way this inventor is demonstrating it can only compromise the claim.

Will you please show the link to the circuit you are referring to?

There is nothing special about this whatsoever. A standard off the shelf transformer can do the same and yes creating PF 0 condition is the same as infinite VSWR and scaler operation. "WE" those of us in the know have been talking about this for YEARS on here but no one pays attention. Using a 3 phase motor into PF 0 condition can light a THOUSAND WATT bulb and consume only a couple of watts leakage from PF 0 so forget 18 watts its kids stuff.
Any measurement meter will show ZERO power consumption and it is correct cos there isn't any power when PF is 0. Problem is Thane serving this on a Xmas Platter but we knew this for long time.

bobo, think for a moment. Zero Watts input, electrically.... means NO POWER INPUT. Therefore.... why does the device need to be hooked up to a functioning input power supply then????
Since it manifestly won't run without being hooked up to an input power source, the "zero Watts" measurement of input power is OBVIOUSLY incorrect. Whether it's less than the measured output or greater is an important issue.... but with "measurements" and reasoning like these, how will you or anyone else ever be able to tell?

Will you please show the link to the circuit you are referring to?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10177.0

bobo, think for a moment. Zero Watts input, electrically.... means NO POWER INPUT. Therefore.... why does the device need to be hooked up to a functioning input power supply then????
Since it manifestly won't run without being hooked up to an input power source, the "zero Watts" measurement of input power is OBVIOUSLY incorrect. Whether it's less than the measured output or greater is an important issue.... but with "measurements" and reasoning like these, how will you or anyone else ever be able to tell?
Zero watts input indeed means no power input but it does not al all mean zero current input. As I've shown, there may be conditions whereby the power input is zero but there's still current flowing which means nonzero power output. Therefore, the above "obviously" is out of place.

You still need a source potential to create a resonance condition. However if there is no power consumed (there is always a tiny bit in reality) then the source just becomes an energizer. For example you could run the transformer on a small 100 watt inverter connected to a 12v gel battery and measure the current. This always sorts this measurement arguing as its DC.
BUT the transformer is still capable of delivering real watts to a load NOT seen back at the battery under these conditions. TUNING is hellish critical!
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. (1990's) Second, it is violently opposed. (20002010) Third, it is accepted as being selfevident. (2011...:)

Hi all, I would highly appreciate if someone can explain me why there still isn't a self runner, bare minimum made from this experiments as it shows clearly a COP of 39.6 !? ???

Hi all, I would highly appreciate if someone can explain me why there still isn't a self runner, bare minimum made from this experiments as it shows clearly a COP of 39.6 !? ???
This resembles a design similar to Ed Leedskalnin's PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder). However, the design has been improved..
After the iron is magnetized and in a closedloop, when shorting the coils together (in the correct polarity), the "magnetic current" within' the iron is sped up. That is supposedly it's own "self runner." As for the COP, I'm not one for numbers until I've conducted the experiments myself. However, I've just seen a number of experiments involving the PMH which are similar to this one..

Zero watts input indeed means no power input but it does not al all mean zero current input. As I've shown, there may be conditions whereby the power input is zero but there's still current flowing which means nonzero power output. Therefore, the above "obviously" is out of place.
At phase angles approaching 90 degrees, small measurement errors make for big percentage errors in the results. There is 89 degrees, 89.5 degrees, 89.9 degrees, etc, and then there is 90.0 degrees and they are all very different.

Hi all, I would highly appreciate if someone can explain me why there still isn't a self runner, bare minimum made from this experiments as it shows clearly a COP of 39.6 !? ???
Because bad measurements and loopy ideas leadout nonsense conclusions.

Hi all, I would highly appreciate if someone can explain me why there still isn't a self runner, bare minimum made from this experiments as it shows clearly a COP of 39.6 !? ???
I will gladly explain. It is a false claim, based on _measurement error_ and faulty understanding of conventional theory.
You are perfectly correct that such a high "COP" as we use the term should make constructing a self runner a trivial exercise. Any competent EE or even hobbyist could do it. I have repeatedly stated that I can do it, given a device with electrical inputs and outputs that made at least COP 1.3, that is a mere 130 percent of its input . With such a large ratio as 39.6 (are we sure it's not 40, or 39.5?) it would indeed be trivial to use the output to charge up some capacitors and then run a _second identical unit_ on the capacitors with whatever buffer or inverter circuitry in between, that would put out even more power than the first one. By the time you have chained together six or ten such units you are talking about Real Power that could actually run substantial loads far greater than could the input to the first unit in the chain. Yet this is never done by the claimants. Why not? _Because they cannot, because their claims are erroneous_.
All the while, the claimants are still powering their homes and laboratories on.... the Grid. And their demonstrations always include Big Batteries, Power Supplies, Mains connections.... and of course DMMs and a bank of light bulbs. Where is the actual Power Analyzer that could easily be used for testing these devices? Nowhere to be found.

Thank you all for your enlightening replies to say the least ;D Although I must say this what woopyjump
did with this test is very promising and sure will give all those windmails out there a lot of more power ! See http://youtu.be/kNVdVrny8s4
Never the less I still am sure there is an abundance of RADIANT (call it whatever you want) energy to be tapped into out there ! Like this I think Clarence is on it's way to become famous !
http://overunity.com/13721/energyfromthegroundselfpoweredgeneratorbybarbosaandleal/msg434141/#msg434141
What a great site this is ! Thanks again all, still hoping one day to my 400km on only RADIANT ! ;D http://tesletic.com/
PS. Just saw this MUST SEE video what explains eventually what you already explained !
BiTT BiToroid Transformator(from Thane Heins)  Replication  Testing(german, english) http://youtu.be/jdZj4PU9s

bobo, think for a moment. Zero Watts input, electrically.... means NO POWER INPUT. Therefore.... why does the device need to be hooked up to a functioning input power supply then????
Since it manifestly won't run without being hooked up to an input power source, the "zero Watts" measurement of input power is OBVIOUSLY incorrect. Whether it's less than the measured output or greater is an important issue.... but with "measurements" and reasoning like these, how will you or anyone else ever be able to tell?
@TinselKoala,
It's wrong to say there's no power input because zero watts are consumed. If the load is purely reactive, on average exactly as much energy flows back from the load to the source as flows to the load from the source, so there's no net energy flow!
"In a simple alternating current (AC) circuit consisting of a source and a linear load, both the current and voltage are sinusoidal. If the load is purely resistive, the two quantities reverse their polarity at the same time. At every instant the product of voltage and current is positive, indicating that the direction of energy flow does not reverse. In this case, only active power is transferred.
If the loads are purely reactive, then the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase. For half of each cycle, the product of voltage and current is positive, but on the other half of the cycle, the product is negative, indicating that on average, exactly as much energy flows toward the load as flows back. There is no net energy flow over one cycle. In this case, only reactive power" flowsâ€”there is no net transfer of energy to the load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H5BerC9Go
Thane explains at 1:20 in this video how the red scope trace shows power coming in and power returning to the source.

Hi,
in Industry we have to pay for reactive power, you have a contact and there is
a charge when your PF. gets below say 9. To get round this you can use a switchable
capacitor bank which continually monitors PF. and adjusts the capacitance automatically.
Put a wind turbine on the roof of your car and you've got free energy! It's not
correct to say there is no input, show the thing working without the grid connection.
John.

I wrote him on his YT channel asking for a reaction on the German replication !? :\ would be interesting what comes from that ;D !
http://youtu.be/jdZj4PU9s
@TinselKoala,
It's wrong to say there's no power input because zero watts are consumed. If the load is purely reactive, on average exactly as much energy flows back from the load to the source as flows to the load from the source, so there's no net energy flow!
"In a simple alternating current (AC) circuit consisting of a source and a linear load, both the current and voltage are sinusoidal. If the load is purely resistive, the two quantities reverse their polarity at the same time. At every instant the product of voltage and current is positive, indicating that the direction of energy flow does not reverse. In this case, only active power is transferred.
If the loads are purely reactive, then the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase. For half of each cycle, the product of voltage and current is positive, but on the other half of the cycle, the product is negative, indicating that on average, exactly as much energy flows toward the load as flows back. There is no net energy flow over one cycle. In this case, only reactive power" flowsâ€”there is no net transfer of energy to the load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H5BerC9Go
Thane explains at 1:20 in this video how the red scope trace shows power coming in and power returning to the source.

There is nothing special about this whatsoever. A standard off the shelf transformer can do the same and yes creating PF 0 condition is the same as infinite VSWR and scaler operation. "WE" those of us in the know have been talking about this for YEARS on here but no one pays attention. Using a 3 phase motor into PF 0 condition can light a THOUSAND WATT bulb and consume only a couple of watts leakage from PF 0 so forget 18 watts its kids stuff.
Any measurement meter will show ZERO power consumption and it is correct cos there isn't any power when PF is 0. Problem is Thane serving this on a Xmas Platter but we knew this for long time.
@Bolt,
Do you have any links to tests or data of any kind on this setup?

Might it be posible to pulse "Reactive Power" through the primary of a normal two winding transformer in such a way that the secondary return flux travels back hrough the core to the primary winding while it's decoupled? This way the lowered primary impedance would have no chance to cause a rise in input. Perhaps two normal transformers might supply a steady current working in alternating phase?
I wonder if this is how bolt's 3 phase setup Works?

Can't see the video, it looks like it's missing!

Can't see the video, it looks like it's missing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh2YnHelZSs

where is the video??

BiToroid video from Thane Heins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H5BerC9Go
Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be possible to simply wire a correctly sized capacitor to the BiToroid primary to create a resonant LC tank, and just replenish the circuit loss? This would generate the same kind of Pure Reactive Power Thane draws from his signal generator, right?

I watched the video and was amazed! It would be a boon to anyone suffering from
photophobia, provided they had a grid connection,
John.