Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Scorch on October 18, 2014, 10:23:56 PM

Title: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 18, 2014, 10:23:56 PM
Hello everybody.  :)

I intend to build a Quanta Magnetics "G1" Gyroscopic Inertia Generator kit and I believe this may be a good place to share my experience with this experiment on the “mechanic” board.
See product page here-  www.quantamagneticstore.com/g1.html (http://www.quantamagneticstore.com/g1.html)

I initially tried to start this topic a few days ago but I unintentionally created it under the wrong board then no response from the admin to move it then lots of negativity from users who do not appear to even be interested in this experiment. So not sure why they are there or why I should even respond to such negativity because I cannot help those who refuse to help themselves or they appear merely to create controversy and distraction against these creative processes. Don't know if this is their intent and I do prefer to merely forgive and forget.   8)

So I am bringing this here under a more appropriate board and subject title for a fresh start.
(Second time is a charm?)

I am here merely to conduct this experiment with an open mind to build a device I have never seen before. And I have only witnessed a few very intriguing video *demonstrations. Although I do maintain continuing communications with the inventor who has always provided excellent support and personal service. Including some insight into the personal history and experiences of this inventor featured here-
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Mike_Kantz%27_Quanta_Magnetics (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Mike_Kantz%27_Quanta_Magnetics)
*See-
www.youtube.com/user/PMMG4HYBRID/videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/PMMG4HYBRID/videos)

My regular trade is: in-home Major Appliance Services.
My formal training is: Airframe and Powerplant Technician.
My contractor's web site is: www.rodsconctracts.com (http://www.rodsconctracts.com)
My prefered social forum is: www.furaffinity.net/user/scorch/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/user/scorch/)
Where you may discover many journals and images about my realities, my alter-egos, and other projects including these alternative energy experiments.

And one of my hobbies is exploring these alternative energy systems which, like some other hobbies such as model railroad or RC aircraft, can be very expensive.

In the past; most of the stuff I have built has been fabricated from raw materials and whatever information I could salvage from a grainy video or 'plans' found on the web. This, in itself, can get pretty expensive and I have actually sold an entire lot of old experiments on Ebay merely to make room in my limited work space and bring in some money to buy new materials or kits. Or very expensive in terms of time such as fabrication of my own coils including Litz windings.

In these particular fields of study there does not appear to be many decent experimental kits so I do have a high appreciation for Quanta Magnetics actually offering some of these types of kits. Which appear to be reasonably priced for a high quality design which is still being developed and supported including international sales.

In my reality; brand name printer ink typically sells for well over $5,000.00 per gallon and some of the people I know often spend this much, or more, on things with far less experimental value such as video games and/or furry costume suits. So, in the reality of this context, I consider the Quanta Magnetic offers to be very fair and reasonable.  :)

I already have experience building some other technologies such as the Bedini SSG and a few other things such as a modified Muller motor. And some experience building a Quanta Magnetics Q2 which I recently converted to a Q3 and have performed a couple preliminary tests with results that look really interesting including a toroidal generator section that suffers very little Lenz effect under a dead short load. As well as the affect of a 'charge accelerator' that rapidly charges the battery by way of a pulsed generator.

The disk generator section, itself, is being pulsed in a similar manner as the pulse motor but with a delay offset from the pulse motor so the generator pulse takes place after the pulse motor 'fires'.

This means that motor is actually "off'" while generator is "on" which is a very interesting setup in itself in that the inertial-kinetic energy is what drives the disk generator. And I did produce a preliminary video attempting to demonstrate some of these effects and all three charging outputs here- www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCVljbXay1c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCVljbXay1c)

Of course the challenge with producing a video is: Watching batteries charge is VERY boring and difficult to demonstrate in a few minutes of video.... So this first video was produced with batteries that were almost charged in an attempt to show charging activities within the limited time of the video. And the fact is I have actually been waiting for Quanta Magnetics to come out with a newer system.

Even back when I was working on the Q2 and providing a lot those details in the Muller forum; the inventor was already working on many other devices including the Q3, T1X and T2.

So, after I received the toroidal generator conversion kit to build the Q3, I only built the toroidal section while leaving the conventional alternator of the Q2 intact. I did a couple tests then set this project aside as I then considered converting it to a T1, then a T2, then possibly using it to built a G1 so it sat on the shelf for an extended period of time while I did other things and waited to see what else the inventor might come up with...

Upon release of the G1; I then decided to go ahead and just complete the conversion of the Q2 over to a Q3 which I just completed a couple weeks ago after all this time.  At which point I had already ordered the G1 and now the Q3 is merely on the back burner, AGAIN, while I concentrate on this new G1 experimental kit.

I have no concern for the negative.
Experience has taught me that when one seeks the negative; one will ALWAYS be able to find it.  :o
Seek and ye shall find... so what's the point and where does it get me?
I prefer to merely seek the solutions and not make these conscious decisions to have a problem with some thing.

If you consciously decide to have a problem with some particular thing here then; how may I help you solve your chosen problem?
What is the remedy, you so desire, to solve the problem you chose to have?

I am a problem solver, not problem seeker, here merely to build and share this experience and knowledge with others here. And any positive input is certainly appreciated including constructive criticism. I seek solutions. Not problems.  ;D

And here is the first image of this project. (see below)

This is the complete kit including the magnets, lots of extra wire, and three ultra capacitor banks rated at 350 Farad.
At this point the design has already been upgraded because in the inventor's previous videos; he is running on only two capacitor banks with a 'start up' lithium battery pack which has now been replaced with a third capacitor bank. And one of the assembly steps is to actually disassemble these capacitor banks to remove the discharge resistors which would be detrimental when attempting to achieve the highest possible efficiency and capacitor charging.

There does appear to be some unique characteristics of this experiment I have not seen before or not combined together in this manner.

Including these things I think I know about this G1 system-
-Three magnetic motor rotors to provide for magnetic flux on both sides of each coil pair which could be described as a "Tri Pole" motor. A feature I have never seen before in this type of system.
-A substantial inertial mass, stainless steel, flywheel storing kinetic energy. Another feature I have not seen in this type of pulse motor system.
-High efficiency, three phase, alternator. Another feature I have never tried installing on any of my past pulse motor projects.
-Flywheel and alternator is "open synchronized". There is no direct connection between the motor and the flywheel-alternator section. Which, yet again, I have never seen this before in any such system which may produce the effect of: Sudden heavy surge, or "spike", loads have very little effect on driver motor rpm.
-Alternator small enough to be mounted INSIDE the diameter of the flywheel resulting in mechanical leverage advantages for inertial-kinetic energy to alternator. And, I guess I'll say it again, haven't seen this in any pulse motor design before.
-Resonate system resonating in harmony with the Schumann resonance of our mother earth. Don't think I have any experience with this either although it may be possible to tune the Q3 to a resonate frequency.

So, yes, I'm really looking forward to analyzing this device and these new ideas I have never seen used together in this manner.

And if you also have any hands on experience with ANY Quanta Magnetics products; you are certainly welcome to share your experiences here.  ;)

And, also, be advised this is merely a hobby for me at this point and I do this at my own leisure.
While I do intend to provide regular progress reports for this experiment; it may be weeks or even months between reports just depending my own priorities, moods, and attitudes. As well as other attitudes which may discourage me from sharing my stuff here such as spam and negativity.

Sometimes I am very driven and motivated to build stuff.
Most other times; I am very lazy and ignoring stuff I should be building...  8)

That is all for now.

Kindest regards;

Scorch.

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: minnie on October 19, 2014, 12:30:51 AM
Scorch,
         good luck! You'd get a fair bit of juice out of  5,000 dollars worth of solar panels.
                 John.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 19, 2014, 02:01:30 AM

Yes, indeed, that is until the clouds move in or the sun sets. . .
And, of course, there is no way I will ever fit $5,000.00 worth of solar panels on an RV, electric car, or electric motorcycle.   ;)

Also; solar panels do not have any cool gyroscopic moving parts, pretty blinking lights, or generate any interesting harmonic sounds to keep me entertained and attract people to my table at parties and conventions.  8)

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch,
         good luck! You'd get a fair bit of juice out of  5,000 dollars worth of solar panels.
                 John.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 19, 2014, 02:26:50 AM
Scorch:

Quote
And some experience building a Quanta Magnetics Q2 which I recently converted to a Q3 and have performed a couple preliminary tests with results that look really interesting including a toroidal generator section that suffers very little Lenz effect under a dead short load.

It's supposed to suffer very little Lenz drag under a "dead short load" because a dead short is a no-load condition.  The same thing will apply to any other similar type of setup.  You do burn off power in the drive coils themselves but zero power is burnt off in the load, because zero ohms is not a load.

You have a lot to learn, good luck.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 19, 2014, 04:29:08 AM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Interesting.
Although I have observed a similar effect with an actual load doing actual work similar to this demonstration in which the load is not a dead short but is a conventional DC motor driving a pump-

http://youtu.be/Zu4pzvkSkzo?t=9m40s (http://youtu.be/Zu4pzvkSkzo?t=9m40s)

I am in the position of personal, hands on, experiential knowledge that I was able to connect a 300ma. load (light bulb) to the output of the toroidal generator and the over-all RPM of my system changed very little, if any, and system current draw changed very little and certainly not anywhere near the 300ma load that I connected...

You may find this effect to be very interesting and can probably be accomplished DIY with a smaller toroidal generator in your own lab.  ;)
Although, if I recall correctly, the 6.5"  toroid on the Q3 is actually very reasonably priced and available from this company-
www.micrometals.com/ (http://www.micrometals.com/)
Look for a toroid part #T650-52 which was wound with 125' of 16AWG magnet wire on each side for the Q3.
The magnetic rotor is 4 pcs of 3"L x 1"W x .5" Thick N42 magnets and additional, smaller, magnets can be added on top of those for better performance.

And, of course, when driven by a large, 12", disk rotor of a pulse motor, this provides for pretty substantial mechanical advantage (leverage) between the 12" diameter of the disk and the much smaller 2.25" diameter of the toroidal rotor.
This mechanical advantage appears to be a pretty major advantage so that pulsed motor current draw only changes a few milliamperes even though generator load increased by over 300ma.
The tiny generator just isn't much of a load for the big motor which could obviously drive a much larger toroidal generator. Or a pair of toroidal generators like the Quanta Magnetics T2 device uses.

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

It's supposed to suffer very little Lenz drag under a "dead short load" because a dead short is a no-load condition.  The same thing will apply to any other similar type of setup.  You do burn off power in the drive coils themselves but zero power is burnt off in the load, because zero ohms is not a load.

You have a lot to learn, good luck.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on October 19, 2014, 07:31:39 AM
I put a flowmeter on my garden hose. I spray water into the back yard while watching the flowmeter. Someone comes along with a bucket and catches some of the water in the bucket. Does my flowmeter reading change when this happens? No, it doesn't !! EUREKA! I have discovered the reason that your RPM doesn't change and your input power doesn't go up when you connect a load.

Did you just not bother to watch my demonstration of _the very same thing_ using the MHOP , which might in a pinch have 20 dollars worth of components in it? I show the MHOP running, with input power measurements, lighting up its NE-2, self-charging one of its own batteries. Then I connect the little ring oscillator and show that there is _no_ change in RPM and that the input power goes _down_ after a small initial surge while the oscillator is connected. Did you miss that? This is the same phenomenon that gets people interested in the Quanta system, isn't it?

Good luck. Many people are envious of you, having so much money to spend on your project.

Here's a challenge for you. Buy two new, identical batteries of the type that is supposed to work the best with any Quanta or Bedini charging system. Say, SLAs of 12 volts nominal, 5 to 10 A-H capacity. Mark them so you don't mix them up. One will be only charged using a commercial automatic automotive battery charger, the other will only be charged using the Bedini or Quanta system.  Set up a couple of nice equal resistive loads, like a bank of car brake light bulbs. Monitor the terminal voltage of the batteries while you charge and discharge them. Discharge them using the load banks, down to the same terminal voltage. Then charge them up, to the same terminal voltage, using the two systems. Do this five times. Then do a comparative rundown test. That is, set up both batteries, which have been charged by the systems to the same terminal voltage, connect them to their load banks, and watch to see which one runs down first. This last part can be easily done with timelapse video or still photography. Report your results, and discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY


Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 19, 2014, 09:09:22 AM
Not sure if the analogy of a hose and bucket is very applicable.
My flow meter would be the ammeter monitoring the flow from the hose powering the motor which turns two generators in a stable state.
One is a disk style generator that, when loaded, causes an unstable state, increase in flow (amperes) to the motor, and a subsequent drop in RPM or even more flow (amperes) required to bring RPM back up into the previous stable state.

This is a typical Lenz effect observed in any conventional generator.
Apply a load and motor/generator slows down and demands more fuel to maintain RPM.

The second is a toroidal generator that, when loaded to 300ma., does not demand much more flow (amperes) from the hose.
Flow meter remains at nearly same readings and only small drop in RPM and system continues in stable state condition while flow-amp meter only shows a 10-15ma. increase in amps-flow from the hose.... while output hose is now putting out an additional flow out.  Not sure where to place the bucket. The flow out is powering the load so can't put the bucket there. . . The only place that makes any sense is that the bucket represents the reserve energy in the capacitor bank but this is irrelevant because we are already monitoring that flow from that hose which continues, at various rates, as long as there is a reserve of water-energy from a capacitor, solar panel, battery or mains power supply.

And this seems to become very tedious when attempting to apply such a simple analogy to a multifaceted design such as this.  :P
Oh, and almost forgot, in the case of the Q3; there is actually a third charging output which is the BEMF from the motor section.
This also has very little effect on the flow from the hose or motor RPM when connected to a load such as charging a battery bank.

Would it be acceptable if I merely do what I intend to do, concentrate on replicating the current experiments with these Quanta Magnetics test beds, and not spend a lot of time doing all these other things you suggest including reviewing videos of other projects not using these QM test beds? These other projects are interesting but I am working with an entirely different platform here.
Those other experiments, in other conditions, on other platforms, may not be very useful in consideration of attempting to merely replicate the experiments that were performed with this platform.

Kindest regards;

PS: The money spent is merely that thing called "discretionary funds" . Nothing to be 'envious' of.
Merely the kind of money people save to buy their toys, video games, musical instruments, guns, model aircraft and trains, golf clubs, hang gliders, boats, vacations and etcetera.

So I bought an experimental kit instead of a fur suit or professional organ, DJ equipment, or video camera like some of my friends might buy for this year's Halloween parties.
What can I say? Except that I do have some cool, weird, Sci-Fi appearing and operating equipment to bring to parties... *shrugs*
www.furaffinity.net/view/14791610/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14791610/)
www.furaffinity.net/view/9948485/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9948485/)
www.furaffinity.net/view/11927226/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/11927226/)
www.furaffinity.net/view/10860118/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10860118/)

}:>


I put a flowmeter on my garden hose. I spray water into the back yard while watching the flowmeter. Someone comes along with a bucket and catches some of the water in the bucket. Does my flowmeter reading change when this happens? No, it doesn't !! EUREKA! I have discovered the reason that your RPM doesn't change and your input power doesn't go up when you connect a load.

Did you just not bother to watch my demonstration of _the very same thing_ using the MHOP , which might in a pinch have 20 dollars worth of components in it? I show the MHOP running, with input power measurements, lighting up its NE-2, self-charging one of its own batteries. Then I connect the little ring oscillator and show that there is _no_ change in RPM and that the input power goes _down_ after a small initial surge while the oscillator is connected. Did you miss that? This is the same phenomenon that gets people interested in the Quanta system, isn't it?

Good luck. Many people are envious of you, having so much money to spend on your project.

Here's a challenge for you. Buy two new, identical batteries of the type that is supposed to work the best with any Quanta or Bedini charging system. Say, SLAs of 12 volts nominal, 5 to 10 A-H capacity. Mark them so you don't mix them up. One will be only charged using a commercial automatic automotive battery charger, the other will only be charged using the Bedini or Quanta system.  Set up a couple of nice equal resistive loads, like a bank of car brake light bulbs. Monitor the terminal voltage of the batteries while you charge and discharge them. Discharge them using the load banks, down to the same terminal voltage. Then charge them up, to the same terminal voltage, using the two systems. Do this five times. Then do a comparative rundown test. That is, set up both batteries, which have been charged by the systems to the same terminal voltage, connect them to their load banks, and watch to see which one runs down first. This last part can be easily done with timelapse video or still photography. Report your results, and discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 19, 2014, 03:31:51 PM
Scorch:

Quote
I am in the position of personal, hands on, experiential knowledge that I was able to connect a 300ma. load (light bulb) to the output of the toroidal generator and the over-all RPM of my system changed very little, if any, and system current draw changed very little and certainly not anywhere near the 300ma load that I connected...

You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to be serious.  You connected a load to your generator and the RPM changed, just like any other similar setup would do the same thing.  Without actual measurements and analysis your comments mean nothing.

I looked at the Quanta Magnetics clip link you provided and it's the same thing.  He is demonstrating nothing out of the ordinary and trying to pretend it is out of the ordinary.  I stated that he is clueless about electronics and about 30 seconds after your link starts he says that he is going to connect "the ultimate resistive load" to his generator and he connects a dead short.  We just had that discussion.  I told you that his clips are "painful" to watch and that's a typical example.

Quote
You may find this effect to be very interesting and can probably be accomplished DIY with a smaller toroidal generator in your own lab.

There is no "effect" whatsoever.  You are leading yourself down a garden path and part of your problem is thinking that Mike Kantz knows what he is talking about when nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote
And, of course, when driven by a large, 12", disk rotor of a pulse motor, this provides for pretty substantial mechanical advantage (leverage) between the 12" diameter of the disk and the much smaller 2.25" diameter of the toroidal rotor.

And of course NOT.  Mechanical advantage does not even apply in this case.  You use the same argument in an attempt to defend Mike Kantz' ridiculous comment alleging that his machine is a free energy machine and I will discuss that issue when I address those comments.

Quote
This mechanical advantage appears to be a pretty major advantage so that pulsed motor current draw only changes a few milliamperes even though generator load increased by over 300ma.
The tiny generator just isn't much of a load for the big motor which could obviously drive a much larger toroidal generator. Or a pair of toroidal generators like the Quanta Magnetics T2 device uses.

I know that I just stated that I will address this issue elsewhere but you are digging yourself into a hole when you make statements like this.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 19, 2014, 03:56:19 PM
I am also going to address the issue that TK raised to complete the picture and relate them to your follow-up comments:

Quote
The second is a toroidal generator that, when loaded to 300ma., does not demand much more flow (amperes) from the hose.
Flow meter remains at nearly same readings and only small drop in RPM and system continues in stable state condition while flow-amp meter only shows a 10-15ma. increase in amps-flow from the hose.... while output hose is now putting out an additional flow out.  Not sure where to place the bucket. The flow out is powering the load so can't put the bucket there. . . The only place that makes any sense is that the bucket represents the reserve energy in the capacitor bank but this is irrelevant because we are already monitoring that flow from that hose which continues, at various rates, as long as there is a reserve of water-energy from a capacitor, solar panel, battery or mains power supply.

The issue is accounting for where ALL of the energy is flowing in a system.  A typical statement might be, "I just put a load on my device and the current draw of the device went down so something special must be happening."

That is a a classic newbie error and you see it all the time.  The problem arises because people fail to account for all of the power flows in the system.  In the Quanta Magnetics devices there is a huge power flow from the power source into waste heat.

Supposing your device is connected to a battery and spinning under no load.  Then you connect your load and the power consumption drops.  If that a eureka moment or is it meaningless?  The answer is that it is meaningless:

No load case:

Power input:  10 watts
Power output:  0 watts
Waste heat generation:  10 watts
Efficiency:  0%

Case with load:

Power input:  8 watts
Power output:  1 watt
Waste heat generation:  7 watts.
Efficiency: 12.5%

As you can see, nothing special is going on.  When you start discussing these "input power drop under load" examples, you MUST measure and factor in the power that is being poured down the drain - the waste heat power.

Quote
Oh, and almost forgot, in the case of the Q3; there is actually a third charging output which is the BEMF from the motor section.
This also has very little effect on the flow from the hose or motor RPM when connected to a load such as charging a battery bank.

If you use the BEMF from your pulse motor, by definition it is not supposed to affect your RPM.  This is the same for any pulse motor.

Finally, you should never just quote current flow without also quoting the voltage associated with that current flow.  I am not being picky here, it is absolutely necessary.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 19, 2014, 08:16:36 PM
Hello everybody.  :)

I just want to get this out of the way before I proceed with this new experiment.
I created this subject for the specific purposes of replicating the G1 experiments but I am not actually new to these Quanta Magnetics systems.
I've already built the Q2, which I subsequently converted to a Q3, and just want to provide a some images of that old project detailing some improvements I installed.

The original Q3 did not come with any measuring devices, as the G1 does, so I did install analog volt and amp meters on the control panel.
Nor did it have a power switch so I installed a toggle switch.
I also eliminated the extra outputs from the cap bank originally used for the Q2 sine wave peak switching and also installed an insulator over the exposed tops of the capacitors.
I also replaced the fixed resistors, that control pulse width for both the motor and generator, with a couple potentiometers.
Plus I did add a DC-DC converter in order to boost the lower voltage of the toroidal generator up to a more useful level for charging batteries and here are some the images from that old experiment.

At this point, and with that out of the way, I will begin assembly of the new G1 experimental platform and hope to accomplish at least one or two steps today.
Positive support is certainly appreciated as I proceed to fabricate this experiment in the spirit of this forum designed for the exploration of these systems.

Non constructive negativity, that is contrary to the spirit of this OU forum such as comments to the extent of: "this is impossible therefore don't even try.", shall be treated accordingly or completely ignored.
And any claim without verifiable proof of claim, beyond mere opinion or "he said; she said" hearsay, shall be considered as mere frivolous claims (trolling/spam).

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 19, 2014, 11:01:07 PM
Scorch:

I am serious when I wish you good luck with your experiments.

In my previous posting I said this, "If you use the BEMF from your pulse motor, by definition it is not supposed to affect your RPM.  This is the same for any pulse motor."

You notice that I didn't tell you why.  You thought that no affect on the RPM when harvesting BEMF was noteworthy, and I told you it isn't.  So, it's up to you if you want to challenge yourself and try to figure out why this is the case.

Here is what would be a big mistake (this is a hypothetical):  A month from now you repeat the same thing when you do an experiment when you harvest the BEMF from your pulse motor.  You post saying, "Look, I am using the BEMF and the RPM doesn't change" in an attempt to make it look like the Quanta Magnetics motor is special in some way.  In other words you would be ignoring what I said.  If you did that you would just be cheating yourself, and cheating the people reading your thread.

The challenge for you is to figure out why.  Just like there will be other interesting challenges for you when you do other tests with your pulse motor/generator.  You want to avoid pseudo-tech cliches to explain what you are observing.

What always reigns supreme is power-in vs. power-out.

I found these links which are worth reading:

http://revolution-green.com/quantamagnetics-pulse-motor/
http://revolution-green.com/quanta-magnetics-pulse-motor/

Quote
Hello Mike I just finished watching your 25 minute video on my good friend's Sterling PESwiki website, I have read his website and communicated with Sterling almost daily for the ten years he has had his website. But Mike I have a question ??

I am a FCC licensed electronic technician / engineer and aircraft mechanic and I understood most of your explanation of your beautiful prototype, But I still do not know the very most important basic information and that is what is the required input wattage and what output wattage does that generate and as an example can if it is ten watts input and 100 watts output can ten of that 100 watts be used to power it and then do you have 90 watts of free energy ? Please advise

Quote
I asked Mike Kantz about self-looping on his Quanta Magnetics Facebook page. He said: "You can view the low input as it is being drawn, yet output cannot be measured the same way due to the resonance effect." So, how does he say the output of the T2 should be measured? He said: "The real output of this machine is measured in amp-hours stored for use from T2 charged batteries." I suppose given enough months of continuous output from a T2, one could charge many hundreds of batteries (storing huge amounts of amp-hours). But this has nothing to do with comparing a T2's watts in vs. watts out. Further, if the battery is being charged by a T2, by definition electricity is moving through a wire, and is there any reason at all that the watts moving through this wire could not be measured? Why would "the resonance effect" prevent measuring the watts moving through a wire? When I asked ZeroFossilFuel about this on his forum, Zero said: " 'Can't measure the same way' = not measuring real power. That's why he doesn't have a self looper, and that is the only true measure of over-unity or energy from the vacuum."

Like I said before, based on my viewing of the Quanta Magnetics clips, he would not know how to do these measurements properly.  You also notice that he is talking nonsense by mentioning resonance.  But more importantly, he would not want to state the measurements anyways, because power-in vs. power-out data for pulse motors usually really sucks.  There is nothing special about pulse charging a battery or charging a battery with a generator output if the power-in to power-out efficiency is only about 30%-35%.  It's even more distasteful when you look at Bedini motors because most of the time people are using a battery to charge a battery.  So it's a huge net loss in energy.

So I have an ongoing challenge to you to make proper power measurements when you do your experiments.  Don't be shy and ask the people on this forum to help you.  Most of the time you will get excellent help.

It's all about posting the real numbers for your Quanta Magnetics setup.  I am sure that many people would be interested in that data.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 20, 2014, 12:20:05 AM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Real numbers.... this has always been a challenge going all the way back to the Bedini SSG.
Performance of which, apparently, can only be quantified by calculating Coefficient Of Performance before and after charging the battery.  ???
This because I can clearly see the batteries are charging much faster than the few milliamperes on the meter face would seem to indicate.

So... how useful is the meter?!?
It claims the batteries should NOT be charging that fast... :o

And possible chemical reactions sometimes described as "reverse ionic flow" in the electrolyte or possible resonate conditions in a battery effecting the chemical reaction....
In consideration of all possible factors effecting chemical reactions such as temperature and vibration; what good are COP calculations without ABSOLUTE, laboratory controlled, conditions, measurements, and calculations?!?

Rumor has it that Tesla didn't use an ammeter for some of his experiments.
So; I still seek measuring instruments that properly quantify the source field energy that some may call "radiant" energy.   ;)

And, as near as I can tell, many of my instruments, including my clock, FAIL in certain aspects such as the apparent evidence that time is non-linear and gravity is a wave and not a particle.
So... What IS a "real number"?  ???

In my reality and at near light speed; the 'real numbers' of instruments indicate an hour passed but the 'real numbers' back on earth say that years have passed....
So which numbers are "real"?  :P

I would prefer to discover, or build, a system which may demonstrate an interesting effect WITHOUT a battery or even a meter.  8)
IF a system actually does power my light 24/7 without a battery; do I need a measuring instrument, or "real numbers", to prove the light is on?  ;D

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

So I have an ongoing challenge to you to make proper power measurements when you do your experiments.  Don't be shy and ask the people on this forum to help you.  Most of the time you will get excellent help.

It's all about posting the real numbers for your Quanta Magnetics setup.  I am sure that many people would be interested in that data.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 20, 2014, 11:47:18 PM
Hello everybody.  :)

I managed to complete some fabrication today.

I began work with the pulse motor stators and did discover a couple minor issues in the process.
In fact I have already repaired the stators once, already, as it does appear that UPS managed to drop the kit somewhere along the way, at least once, and one coil on each stator had broken loose.
This was easily repaired with weldon #16 acrylic adhesive. When coils break loose; this results in a unique pattern, or "key", allowing the coil to simply be glued back into exactly the same place.

It does appear that the manufacture may wish to consider increasing the amount of glue during assembly so that glue actually spreads out between the bobbin and the stator for a stronger bond that might be better for the rigours of shipping.
It wouldn't be as pretty but, since this plate is covered by a very close fitting rotor, I wouldn't care anyway.  ;)

After removing the protective wrapper from the acrylic plates; I did discover that three of the coils were not actually lined up with the plates. :P
The plates have circles machined to accommodate the coils as well as a groove machined in each circle to accommodate the inside wire from the bobbin.
And whoever assembled these simply didn't do a very good job making sure the coils, and respective wires, were lined up with the grooves properly.

I don't think this is a performance or clearance issue but, sometimes, I am a little picky about such things...  ;)

So I simply used a hammer to knock out the three coils, machined in a 'side' groove to accommodate the improper alignment, then reinstalled the coils in a similar manner that I used with the first two that broke loose in shipping. So that solved the first minor issue.

I can understand why this might happen as it was assembled while protective acrylic wrap was still in place therefore no way to see this alignment during assembly.
It's a catch 22. Either leave wrap on to protect finish but possibly misalign coils. Or take wrap off for the assembly but possibly damage finish during assembly or shipping.   :P

The second issue I discovered is that some of the fasteners were sticking out from the back of the stator plates resulting in a small 'bump'.
And, because these stator plates have rotors on both the inside and the outside, this rear face should be as smooth as possible and no obstructions so that rotor may be mounted as close as possible to the stator.
This was easily remedied in a few seconds with an angle grinder to smooth down the bumps and solved this second minor issue forthwith.
And the manufacturer may wish to consider a little higher quality control to ensure no protrusions.
This, once again, might be better to do without the protective wrapper for closer inspection.

I did go a little outside the original design specification which calls for both stators to be connected together via two brass crimp connectors to be installed after stators assembled together in frame.
But I chose to actually solder these connections and provided separate pairs of leads for each stator.
This will be a more solid electrical connection and makes it much easier if experiment needs to be disassembled for whatever reason.  ;D

That is all for now.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 21, 2014, 06:47:23 AM
Scorch:

I have two questions about your build.

Please see the attached picture.  I edited a frame from a clip.  Is that the basic architecture of the pulse motor section of what you are building?   (Left, center, and right rotors with embedded magnets on three separate rotating polycarbonate disks, and two sets of drive coils on two separate fixed polycarbonate slabs.)

For the pulse motor coils that you show pictures of, how "deep" does the wire go on each spool?  You can see that the spools are all red.  Does that mean the wire goes from an inner diameter of about 1/4" to the outer diameter of about 3"?

Thanks,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 22, 2014, 12:32:42 AM
Hey MileHile.  :)

Yes; that is the basic architecture of it.
There are three rotors with three magnets per each coil pair.

The main rotor, between the coils, contains 6 pcs of 1.5" Dia x 0.75" Thick N52 magnets.
The two outside rotors, behind the coils, are 12 pcs of 1.5" Dia x 0.25" Thick N42 magnets.

Coil bobbin outside dimensions are 3" diameter by 1" thick and inner diameter is also 1" and gives me the impression of a VHS tape reel which may work well for a DIY project on a budget.
They are wound with pretty substantial, 18AWG, (0.0415") magnet wire wound all the way out to the edges. Do not know how many turns or length of wire this is.
Quanta Magnetics used to sell the empty bobbins separately but I do not see them on the new web site.

Kindest regards.

}:>

PS: Quanta Magnets is aware of these minor issues with coils being dislodged in shipping, coil wires not lining up, and 'bumps'.
And the company has already updgraded the G1 design to provide for stator plates and coils to be assembled by the builder and new, custom, nylon fasteners to eliminate high spot 'bumps'.

}:>

Scorch:

I have two questions about your build.

Please see the attached picture.  I edited a frame from a clip.  Is that the basic architecture of the pulse motor section of what you are building?   (Left, center, and right rotors with embedded magnets on three separate rotating polycarbonate disks, and two sets of drive coils on two separate fixed polycarbonate slabs.)

For the pulse motor coils that you show pictures of, how "deep" does the wire go on each spool?  You can see that the spools are all red.  Does that mean the wire goes from an inner diameter of about 1/4" to the outer diameter of about 3"?

Thanks,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2014, 01:27:30 AM
Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on October 22, 2014, 06:24:59 AM
The ability to put both poles of the magnets and coils to work (except for the ends of the stack) is the one thing about this kind of design that is "better" than single-pole PMs like the MHOP. But is this feature implemented correctly, or even optimally? Eventually one winds up with a design that strongly resembles ordinary "can" DC motors. Even good strong and efficient "inside out" brushless DC motors, so called "outrunners", suffer from this pole problem, where only one pole of the coils interacts with only one pole of the rotor magnets. Making a vertical sandwich like the Quanta designs is one attempt at a cure, even though it "orphans" the poles that are on the outside of the sandwich. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to wrap horseshoes (U-shaped cores) around the edge of the rotor disc, and wind coils on the outer portions of the horseshoes. This way both poles of the coil will affect both poles of a rotor magnet embedded in the disk Quanta-style.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2014, 06:46:13 AM
I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 22, 2014, 06:37:03 PM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Yes; there is a timing disk and reed switch controlling a solid state relay part # SDP4020D.
Reed switch types have varied in these designs but it has been discovered that a reed relay actually performs better in this application and the current version is an OMR-C-105H.

And this particular, G1, design does not, necessarily, energize all coils for each magnet six times per revolution.
The timing disk does have 6 holes for 6 pulses but there are tuning choices to run from anywhere between 1 to 6 pulses per revolution depending on desired performance.
And, yes, both timing and pulse width may be adjusted by moving reed switch in or out or around the timing disk.

And this system has at least nine tuning parameters so I am expecting some challenges just trying to tune this experiment.  :P
(See image capture from youtube comments.)
And there are even external influences including position of device in relation to magnetic north and location of device in relation to the junctions and lines of the icosahedron shaped core of this planet and its effects on the source field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_grid)
http://cs.sou.edu/~sahrk/dgg/pubs/gdggs03.pdf (http://cs.sou.edu/~sahrk/dgg/pubs/gdggs03.pdf)
Also see or hear:
www.amazon.com/Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations-Prophecies/dp/0452297974/ (http://www.amazon.com/Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations-Prophecies/dp/0452297974/)
(Includes references to scientific investigations, studies, papers, journals and etcetera.)

And, because this system incorporates a substantial flywheel storing kinetic energy resulting in a three phrase alternator that continues charging even when pulse motor is off, one does the option to only run pulse motor intermittently through additional control circuitry (not part of this experimental kit) such as a manual switch, 555 timer, voltage, frequency, or RPM based sensor and control system, or whatever.

This is one of the many interesting things about this design.
I have built many pulse motors but have never incorporated a large flywheel or a high efficiency, three phase, alternator that fits INSIDE the motor rotor.
Think of a standard automotive alternator that is actually mounted INSIDE a high efficiency motor.

It would appear this provides for the highest possible 'leverage' (mechanical advantage) for the motor to turn the alternator when the motor rotor has effectively been replaced with an alternator at its core.
Therefore requires less electrical and magnetic effort to turn the alternator as compared to something more conventional such as a belt or direct drive between a motor and alternator of similar diameter.

The farther away from the central shaft you can locate the coil and rotor magnet; the more mechanical advantage-leverage there is for that same coil and magnet to actually turn that shaft.

This one of the great advantages of a disk design. But, of course, there may be limits to this.
Because the larger your disk; the more you have fill that space with larger coils and magnets or simply add additional coils and magnets...
Of course, with the Muller/Wood disk motor design, there is an "offset" number of magnets to coil pairs so that coils are pulsing sequentially and I believe this also has advantages and we may see this design more often in the future.

And, yes, some of the other QM designs, including the Q2 and Q3, do have a patchwork design in which each of the 6 coil pairs have independent bridge rectifiers for better capture of BEMF.
The "T" series and "G1" does not incorporate this complicated patchwork of wiring into 6 rectifiers.
And I am very thankful for this because that patchwork is a very time consuming pain in tail to build...  ;D

I intend to build the alternator stator next but not sure when I will begin that.
Have lots of other priorities around here. . .
Hopefully within the next few days but I do have to tackle a major plumbing project soon to replace a bathtub faucet in addition to everything else I am trying to complete, before winter, including cutting down and processing no less than 7 large, dead, elm trees on this land which is what I have been occasionally working on this summer... by myself... while trying NOT to kill my vessel (body) in the process...

Kindest regards;

}:>




I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 22, 2014, 06:39:57 PM
Hey Milehigh.  :)

There does not appear to be an option to pulse just one side but there are options to pulse anywhere from one to six times per revolution.

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2014, 09:37:23 PM
Scorch:

Okay, this may be my last comment and you will build your motor and do your testing on your own terms.

You know how I feel about the esoteric stuff and I don't want to repeat myself, but I will just address this new concept that you mentioned:

Quote
location of device in relation to the junctions and lines of the icosahedron shaped core of this planet and its effects on the source field

There is no icosahedron shaped core of the planet and there are no line junctions to worry about.  That is just a technique to map out the surface area of the globe or any other area (like a petri dish with bacteria growing on it) in order to analyze something.  You have one hexagon surrounded by six equal hexagons.  You can therefore create some kind of mathematical model for how the six boundaries of the center hexagon will interact with the six neighbouring hexagons.  You could use that to create a mathematical model for how a forest fire will progress with a certain wind velocity and direction, as an example.  You crunch data in time steps where every hexagon interacts with every bordering hexagon.  It's used for numerical analysis and mathematical modeling and has nothing to do with a pulse motor.

Okay moving on, my last major point about your pulse motor and the issue of firing one set of coils vs. firing both sets of coils.  Also, I understand how you can determine the number of firings per rotation, it all depends on how many little button magnets you put into their respective slots in the timing disk.

I am advising you to take the output from the solid state relay and split it into two so that you feed separate power to the left and right sets of coils.  Put an in-line switch in series with each power feed so that you have the option to fire the left coils only, the right coils only, or "normal operation" where you fire both sets of coils.

Here is the reason: For starters, we are not going to discuss the outer rotors that couple to the "outside sides" of the two sets of coils.  I am only going to discuss the center rotor below, there is no issue with the two outer rotors.

Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

Note the coils are fairly wide and narrow, and note that the coils are in fairly close proximity to each other since the rotor disk is relatively thin.  When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

So here is what you get for each coil:  100 units of torque energy minus 70 units of torque energy due to magnetic field self-cancellation for a net 30 units of torque energy.

Single coil pulsing:  100 units of torque energy
Both coils pulsing:  60 units of torque energy.

Mike Kantz probably thought that he would be getting about 200 units of torque energy per pulse, but in fact he is only getting about 60 units of torque energy per pulse.  Therefore, it's highly likely that the pulse motor will perform better if you only pulse with one set of coils and not both sets.  You pay a price for all of that magnetic field self-cancellation also.  You have battery energy expended that goes "nowhere" due to the self-cancellation of the magnetic field.  It just becomes waste heat resistive losses in the coils, i.e.; battery energy poured down the drain.

Please see the attached graphic.  The orange area represents where there will be lots of self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 23, 2014, 02:27:18 AM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

No problem.
I accept your position and personal belief system (within your own reality and sphere of influence) that such things as the specific geometric shape of a planet's core, or its related energy fields, do not exist, or are merely "esoteric", despite the growing scientific evidence of such things and their practical applications.  Such as the construction of the pyramids or coral castle, alternative energy systems, interstellar travel, genetic engineering and etcetera.

And, no, I do not know what another man feels, knows, or believes. ::)
This is because, even though we all appear to be connected on this particular plain of existence, we are all still individuals each walking our own path of learning and experience.
Such as a decision to NOT study such things as the scientific source field investigations or the synchronicity key and its 680+ verifiable scientific references.  8)

And, please forgive me, but I will not be making any such major modifications (per your advisory) at this time of an honest attempt to merely replicate the original experiment on those terms.
Although it is an interesting idea and I may consider such things sometime in the distant future, if conditions warrant it, AFTER replication of the device, tuning, experiments and measurements have been completed per the stated purpose of this topic and endeavor.

Although such modifications may also involve other experiments as well.

Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect.
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!  :o
This because the magnetic flux currents remain within the closed loop of the toroid which is easily demonstrated with a simple experiment.
Such as this experiment with a closed loop that has a removable 'gate' which allows the flux currents to remain in place when gate is closed or released when gate is opened resulting in a collapse of the field and subsequent surge of potential from the coil at a much later time-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwUYgabGw9g
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wASgrVr2eg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mBnw0hg8ME

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

Okay, this may be my last comment and you will build your motor and do your testing on your own terms.

You know how I feel about the esoteric stuff and I don't want to repeat myself, but I will just address this new concept that you mentioned:

There is no icosahedron shaped core of the planet ...

...I am advising you to take the output from the solid state relay and split it into two so that you feed separate power to the left and right sets of coils....

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 23, 2014, 03:51:15 AM
Scorch:

Adding the switches, or even a single switch to disable one side only, does not change the pulse motor at all.  If I were you I would be very curious to investigate this issue at an appropriate time.

I watched all three of your Leedskalnin clips.  There is nothing there and physics can explain it all.  You can research it if you want and find the truth.  You know how there was a time before Louis Pasteur when people did not know about bacteria and how disease was transmitted and they were not aware of the need for living in sanitary conditions?  That's what the clips feel like from an electronics perspective.  If it's any consolation you have a lot of company with respect to the "perpetual motion holder."

Quote
Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect.
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
This because the magnetic flux currents remain within the closed loop of the toroid which is easily demonstrated with a simple experiment.

Nope, some of the flux leaks out of the toroid.  Also, you are hedging your bets and expressing wishful thinking about the lack of Lenz drag with out any true evidence of that.  There is an easy experiment you can do to prove that I am right.  All that you have to do is spin the magnet inside the toroid in a separate small setup.  Measure the spin-down time with no load resistors on the two coils and with load resistors on the two coils.  You may have to experiment a bit to find a good value for the load resistors.  Then you will see that the spin-down is always shorter when the load resistors are across the two coils.  That will prove the existence of the Lenz drag.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 23, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Please forgive me as I do agree this modification is relatively simple to implement especially since I did provide for separate stator leads and would not even require a switch since I can merely disconnect one side or the or the other.  But until such time the replication of the original experiment is completed; I will not be performing any modifications or extra experiments such as disabling half the stator in what is intended to be a well balanced circuit and system operating in a resonate condition.

I am of the firm belief that resonance, in harmony with the source field, is the key to OU.
Please forgive my beliefs in such things as source fields often represented as "sacred geometry".  ;)

www.coralcastlecode.com (http://www.coralcastlecode.com)

And please forgive my confusion with regards to your statements regarding the benefits of a toroidal generator which has its roots in the "Gamme Machine"-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramme_machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramme_machine)

Are we to understand you are of the position that Stefan's (administrator of this forum) verification of these benefits (of a modern version of the Gramme Machine) is false?!?
(see attached images of quote from the June 1994 issue of "new energy news magazine" page 9.)

And, if so, may we (including Stefan) please see the proof of your alleged claim?

Kindest regards;

}:>



Scorch:

Adding the switches, or even a single switch to disable one side only, does not change the pulse motor at all.  If I were you I would be very curious to investigate this issue at an appropriate time.

I watched all three of your Leedskalnin clips.  There is nothing there and physics can explain it all.  You can research it if you want and find the truth.  You know how there was a time before Louis Pasteur when people did not know about bacteria and how disease was transmitted and they were not aware of the need for living in sanitary conditions?  That's what the clips feel like from an electronics perspective.  If it's any consolation you have a lot of company with respect to the "perpetual motion holder."

Nope, some of the flux leaks out of the toroid.  Also, you are hedging your bets and expressing wishful thinking about the lack of Lenz drag with out any true evidence of that.  There is an easy experiment you can do to prove that I am right.  All that you have to do is spin the magnet inside the toroid in a separate small setup.  Measure the spin-down time with no load resistors on the two coils and with load resistors on the two coils.  You may have to experiment a bit to find a good value for the load resistors.  Then you will see that the spin-down is always shorter when the load resistors are across the two coils.  That will prove the existence of the Lenz drag.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 23, 2014, 04:50:09 PM
Hello Everybody.  :)

Last night, while listening to talk radio, I heard an ad for this Ultra Capacitor based "truck start module" and thought some of you may be interested in this product from my favorite capacitor manufacturer-
www.maxwell.com/esm/

This is a product I may consider acquiring some day as I do own several Cumins Turbo-Diesel engines including a Dodge Pickup, a spare engine, and two step vans that I re powered with Cumins engines.
See:
www.furaffinity.net/view/3454528/

That is all.

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 23, 2014, 08:56:38 PM
Scorch:

Here is a thought experiment:   You have two coils that are facing each other like in your pulse motor setup with the same current flowing through them because they are connected in series.  They start at 10 cm apart and they approach each other.  The closer they get to each other the more the magnetic fields they generate will cancel each other out.  If you measure the inductance of the pair with an inductance meter it will decrease the closer they get together.  At 5 cm apart there is moderate cancellation and the inductance is moderately reduced.  At 1 cm apart there is significant cancellation and a significant reduction in inductance.  If they could occupy the same volume (zero distance between each other) the magnetic field becomes zero, the inductance becomes zero, and you are just left with the resistance of the wire.

So in the pulse motor setup they might be 1.5 cm apart.  You end up with a weak torque imparted on the center rotor when the two coils pulse.  Plus you are driving two coils instead of a single coil, so that means you are consuming twice the power.  So when you compare two coils to one coil, you are consuming twice the power and only getting roughly 60% of the push on the center rotor (as per my previous example).

So while you are running your main tests you can disconnect a wire to make a spot check to see if this is indeed the case.  If the pulse motor is just free running, it looks like disconnecting the wire will reduce your power consumption by half and then the motor will start to speed up.  It's a worthwhile test.

Quote
be a well balanced circuit and system operating in a resonate condition.

Can you please explain what you mean by a resonant condition?

Quote
I am of the firm belief that resonance, in harmony with the source field, is the key to OU.

Can you please explain what you mean by the source field?

For the Gramme Machine, it's not exactly the same as the setup for your motor because you don't have a commutator but they are quite similar.

Here is a claim you made in your previous posting:

Quote
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!

From your Wikipedia link:

Quote
During a demonstration at an industrial exposition in Vienna in 1873, Gramme accidentally discovered that this device, if supplied with a constant-voltage power supply, will act as an electric motor. Gramme's partner, Hippolyte Fontaine, carelessly connected the terminals of a Gramme machine to another dynamo which was producing electricity, and its shaft began to spin.[3] The Gramme machine was the first powerful electric motor useful as more than a toy or laboratory curiosity. Today the design forms the basis of nearly all DC electric motors.

So your statement "Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect." is false.  There are no unique benefits and no violations in Lenz's law.  If you can do the spin-down test like I suggested you will prove that there is Lenz drag.  If you are outputting power into a load resistor with any kind of generator setup that you can possibly imagine, there will always be Lenz drag.  The big mistake on your part is to believe in a "magic" generator configuration.

I am not making any specific comments on a test that Stefan did 15 years ago that I haven't read up on.  You cannot put words in my my mouth like that and play straw man.  In a generic sense it's likely that there were measurement errors.  That happens all the time.  For example, take the example of JL Naudin.  He has had to retract his claims of over unity many times over.  Additionally, can you cite any replications of Stefan's data?  We are 20 years later, has anything come of it?  Look at the example above where you made claims that were refuted in the same Wikipedia link that you provided yourself.  These kinds of things happen all the time.  There is simply no "magic" motor or generator configuration that doesn't obey the basic laws of physics.  The burden would be on your shoulders to prove that if you believed it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 23, 2014, 11:31:49 PM
Scorch:
... Can you please explain what you mean by a resonant condition?

Hey MileHigh.  :)

This would be the basic definition in physics:
"the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object."
And, yes, I do expect a motor/generator operating in an electro-magic resonance to produce a distinct, two tone, synchronous sound.
This is why the Muller motor, the QEG, and G1 all produce a unique, sometimes very loud, synchronous sound.

Think of a humming transformer that changes tones and octaves as the frequency changes.
All materials, including living biological systems, right down to its smallest particle, all have a natural resonance depending on shape such as a tuning fork or violin string.

Same goes for the humming transformer. Somewhere within a wide range of frequency is the resonant frequency of that particular transformer including it's coils, core, and hardware.
At this resonant frequency; the transformer may produce a very unique, synchronous, resonant tone that only appears at that specific frequency and may reappear at different octaves of that same frequency.
With enough power there may even be a noticeable increase of force from the resonance actually resulting in visible movement such as the device scooting across the bench much like toy football players scoot across the vibrating table.

And, if there is any sand on the same table, some very interesting patterns may emerge in the shapes of "sacred geometry" providing a visual representation of these resonant frequencies.
And here is an interesting video demonstrating the geometry that may appear as the table resonates at these different frequencies.-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIvAsZvBiw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIvAsZvBiw)
Alternate-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zw0uWCNsyw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zw0uWCNsyw)

Do the sounds, from either one of these resonant pattern experiments, sound anything like the introductory sound at 1:07 of this Quanta Magnetics video?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VdsWn-Q9Y& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VdsWn-Q9Y&)

And, BTW, every unit that APPEARS to be identical may have different resonant frequencies and something as simple as how tight the windings are wound, and bolts are torqued, do effect this.
SO; to actually TUNE such a system, including changing clearances and adjusting bolts, does require a good ear for such things, some finesse, and LOTS of patience....  :P

Says I; the one who has been tuning engines, most of his life, based merely on how they sound...  8)

Can you please explain what you mean by the source field?

Not easily, or in short period of time, no.
Please forgive me as I am not qualified to fully explain these things that I first began investigating nearly twenty years ago beginning with coral castle and the revealing images and interesting experiments found at the www.coralcastlecode.com (http://www.coralcastlecode.com) web site as well as other interesting stuff here- www.leedskalnin.com (http://www.leedskalnin.com)

I only have one reference book and it took me about 20 hours just to listen to this one audio book in its entirety without much note taking or stopping to check references.
http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SourceFieldInvestigations/ (http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SourceFieldInvestigations/)
Which reads like a laundry list of verifiable scientific experiments, investigations, tests and laboratory results.
And, no, I have not attempted to verify ALL of them and I'm not going to because I have been witness to enough to believe this is honest, true, research and knowledge.  8)

So this is the extent of my knowledge of these physics, including the quantum physics, beyond what I might see in my mind's eye.
And other sources such as www.coralcastlecode.com (http://www.coralcastlecode.com) and vortex math and physics also plays a part in these resonant systems and geometries.
http://vortexspace.org (http://vortexspace.org/dashboard.action)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity)

Seek the positive truth and ye shall find it.
Seek the negative and ye shall that as well.  :D
50/50, Yin & Yang, Positive and Negative...
Energy sucked in, and very cold, at North & South.
Energy out, and very hot, in the middle...

And I am currently, still, attempting to absorb the synchronicity key materials.
I usually just play these files while behind the wheel running service calls.
Hear: http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SynchronicityKey/ (http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SynchronicityKey/)

I gain a lot of my 'book' knowledge in this manner.
Simply by listening to lectures over and over including law studies, health, new energy systems and etcetera.
And, once in awhile, the subject is interesting enough for me to actually take a note, or two, then confirm the knowledge (at a later date) through personal discernment and first hand experience.  8)

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 24, 2014, 02:02:15 AM
Scorch:

What are you talking about, mechanical resonance or electrical resonance?

If you are talking about mechanical resonance, how could that possibly apply to your pulse motor, which is an electrical device?

If you are talking about electrical resonance, then please be specific.  Please describe the resonance mechanism.  There are always two components and two variables in any resonance system, be it mechanical or electrical.  So if you are implying electrical resonance, what components and what variables?

Quote
All materials, including living biological systems, right down to its smallest particle, all have a natural resonance depending on shape such as a tuning fork or violin string.

It all depends on what type of resonance you are talking about, what the components are, and what the variables are.  Everything does not necessarily have a "natural resonance," that's a meaningless statement that you will hear at some kind of New Age conference.  Do you understand where I am coming from?  When you state something, it has to really mean something.  Otherwise we all end up drowning in BS.  You have to be able to back up your statements with real facts and real logic.  Just pointing to something is not an 'escape clause' either.

I have seen the clips with the patterns in the sand on the vibrating surfaces.  It's not the "shapes of 'sacred geometry,'" you are falling hook, line, and sinker for some New Age gibberish.  Those patterns at the resonant nodes on the vibrating surfaces are showing you Nature in action, where Nature is following the symmetry of the mathematics that describe Nature and vice-versa.  No pun intended, but you need to "get your head out of the sand."  Those patterns are real-world demonstrations of solutions to differential equations.  It's that kind of mathematical modeling that allows us to design bridges where we can be sure that the resonances in the bridge structure are dealt with properly so that the bridge doesn't shake itself to pieces.  That of course actually happened and we learned from our mistakes and oversights.  But there is nothing "sacred" about this.  It just makes me uncomfortable to try to attach some kind of spirituality to something concrete and real.

Resonance is one of the most misunderstood and abused terms in the whole realm of free energy and "New Age consciousness."  It's used to sucker people and create the pretense that something special is going on.  My advice to you is to only use that term when you can back it up with reasoning and facts.  When Quanta Magnetics tries to link their vanilla pulse motor with the Schumann resonance, it an abuse of the term.  I have already challenged you on that one and you can't back it up.

Quote
And, BTW, every unit that APPEARS to be identical may have different resonant frequencies and something as simple as how tight the windings are wound, and bolts are torqued, do effect this.
SO; to actually TUNE such a system, including changing clearances and adjusting bolts, does require a good ear for such things, some finesse, and LOTS of patience....

That all sounds fine and dandy but take note of what I said above.   I challenge you:  whenever you mention "resonance" explain the mechanism, the two components, and the two variables.  Otherwise, there is nothing there.

The classic example is when you blow air across the top of a beer bottle and you hear a tone.  Without looking anything up, can you explain the resonance in this situation?   I seriously doubt that you can, and that means you have to learn what you are talking about before you discuss something.  It's a very important principle that you want to live by.

Perhaps sometime later I will tackle the issue of the "source field" but I don't have the time today to look at your links.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 24, 2014, 02:38:06 AM
Scorch:

Let me just "temper" my comments to give you some context.  I am not involved and don't really care about your pulse motor.  Likewise, I have no involvement in what you think and believe and in the final analysis I don't really care, those are your affairs and live and let live.  Nor do I really care about your YouTube clips.

This is just an exercise on my part to make you really think about what you are saying.  And by extension the readers can contemplate these issues also.  It's all fine and dandy to read all of this stuff and gobble it all up and believe that it's all true.  But as a society we can't afford to lose sight of what really counts.  Sometimes these cockamamie ideas are harmless, other times they really hurt people.  They hurt people financially, they put people in danger, sometimes people die for totally stupid reasons that should never have happened.

So you should really think about these issues.  Your "belief system" is a house of cards that will collapse when real-world results are demanded.  There is a Rodin coil promoter guy and he managed to slip through the cracks and managed to get on a "Ted Talks."  He said that the Rodin mathematics and the Rodin coil where going to "change the world and solve ALL of our problems."  He was supposed to back up some of his statements with data and he promised two weeks after his Ted Talk that he would email the organizers.  He never did.  Probably about two-hundred thousand dollars total have been "invested" in the "QEG phenomenon" over the past nine months.  No QEG will ever produce so much as a pico-Joule of excess energy.  A "mass movement of nothingness."  Those are the problems and pitfalls that we have to work together to prevent from happening.  Those are things for you to think about.  Is your Quanta Magnetics pulse motor something amazing or is it just a glorified grade 8 science fair project?  Is Mike Kantz part of the "new energy paradigm" or is he just a Joe Blow that knows very little out to make a buck?  It's important for all of us to know the right answers to those questions.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 24, 2014, 07:01:09 PM
Scorch:

Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

MileHigh

Are you of the position we should speak for others?


Scorch:

I am not making any specific comments on a test that Stefan did 15 years ago that I haven't read up on.  You cannot put words in my my mouth like that and play straw man.

MileHigh

Are you of the position we should not speak for others?!?  :o

Did I speak for another or did I merely ask a question?

Please forgive my confusion caused by your words versus your other words...

And please forgive my choice to concentrate on replicating this experiment versus expending a lot of my time and energy for these multi-page dualism word games or attempting to educate the ignorant.  :P
Such as the belief that splitting a balanced system in half may be an improvement.  Or a belief that a resonating electric system emitting obvious sound, such as a vibrating coil, transformer, or motor actually producing said sound, is, somehow, separate or completely independent from it's physical-mechanical characteristics required to actually produce a sound including an electro-mechanical resonant sound.

Nor am I here to resolve multiple challenges issued from the ignorant regarding obvious unknowns such as a system we haven't built yet...
If one takes a firm position regarding the unknown; what shall we call this? Is it mere ignorance or is it something else?  ???

Kindest regards;

}:>

PS: The term "ignorant" is not derogatory. It simply means "not educated" in a field of study such as merely reading a book and testing its references.
Or: "not educated" in the existence of these verifiable scientific investigations into the source field that effects all these systems including these solar systems, planetary systems, biological systems, mental systems, fluid systems, gas systems, electrical systems and, of course, all these energy systems all the way down to the to the quantum level and torsion field physics.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 24, 2014, 11:32:57 PM
Scorch:

Yes I am in a position to make inferences about the pulse motor because of my education and experience.  Plus in the one of the clips he even states there will be a "stronger" field between the two opposing coils when in actual fact it will be weaker.  And yes indeed you should not put words in my mouth like you did.  The two views are not incompatible they both have their respective contexts which you seemingly want to "pretend" to forget.

Quote
Or a belief that a resonating electric system emitting obvious sound, such as a vibrating coil, transformer, or motor actually producing said sound, is, somehow, separate or completely independent from it's physical-mechanical characteristics required to actually produce a sound including an electro-mechanical resonant sound.

Typically when a transformer hums it represents a tiny tiny loss mechanism compared to the power throughput of the device.  Chances are the hysteresis of the core material will represent a much higher loss proportionally than the hummming.  When the windings of a transformer hum that's just a "motor" siphoning off a very small amount of power.  That's the only linkage between the physical vibrations and the electrical device.  If you don't believe me go ahead and do some very precise measuring and analysis if you want to.

Quote
PS: The term "ignorant" is not derogatory. It simply means "not educated"

Ha ha ha, that's "really slick" buffoonery on your part.  You want a good example of ignorance?  Your three "perpetual motion holder" clips are totally ignorant and counterproductive because they mislead people that might be at the beginning of the learning curve.  This is the second time I am telling you this.  If you don't believe me then go and educate yourself.  You should be embarrassed about those clips after you have educated yourself and you should feel the need to take them down.

Anyway, I can feel the "wall" were you want to stick to all of your "alternative" beliefs, no matter how many times it is apparent to you that you have a lot to learn about the real thing, real electronics, real magnetics, and so on.  It's "easier" for you to stick to the pseudo electronics and watch the numbers on your digital meters and believe that you are confirming things like the "source field."  Just keep in mind your pulse motor doesn't do much more then lose energy.   A pair of wires conducting the voltage and current from point A to point B will outperform your pulse motor all the time.

I am out of here and I am looking forward to seeing what you can produce.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 28, 2014, 12:32:47 AM

This new thread is now dominated by MileHigh just as the previous thread was...  :P

So; is there anybody else here interested in this endeavour?
(Anybody else offering anything else besides an abundance of negative opinions and frivolous claims regarding that which I haven't even built yet.)

If no preponderance of evidence that many others here are actually interested in how this experiment may proceed then; I will simply keep my updates to my own preferred social forum versus this OU forum which, so far, has provided very little interest from anybody else.
Page statistics show well over 2,000 views for this relatively new topic but history also shows well under 5 users actually responding and even less with positive responses and MileHigh dominating this conversation... with... well; what can I say?  Seek and ye shall find....  :D

This is not who I am, not why I came here to share, and I will NOT be participating in such superiority games.  8)

IF there is anybody else here actually interested in seeing this experiment progress and possibly produce something interesting or useful, then please let it be known, here, NOW.  :)

If nobody else here is interested then, by all means, allow your silence to be your silent consent that there is no reason for me to share my stuff here.
If there are any objections to me sharing my stuff somewhere ELSE; then please let it be known.
Otherwise your silent consent is acceptable and I will give my energy to my preferred forum per your silent procedure consent.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure)

If there is no evidence of an abundance of users actually interested and providing positive support for these types of experiments; then what is the point and why is this forum even here?
Why bother and endure the negativity here when I actually prefer to share my stuff elsewhere?!?

I see no evidence this forum is still for the sharing and support of possible OU discoveries as it once was.
Are there any objections or evidence to the contrary of these findings?

Speak now or, forever, hold your peace.

Makes no difference to me and free will is certainly allowed.   :)

Please respond.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on October 28, 2014, 01:00:46 AM
Scorch:

The thread is all yours.  You can consider our discussion a big preamble to the thread.

So you have a pulse motor, perhaps you can post something interesting about it.  If it's partially built and spinning perhaps you could do an experiment and present some data.  That might get people to start posting on your thread.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on October 28, 2014, 04:04:00 PM
Hey Webby.  :)

Nice to learn there actually is at least one more paying attention who might be interested in this experiment.

Welcome and I will certainly take this into consideration.  8)

Are there any others?

Are there any other objections to me sharing this experiment somewhere else?

If yes; then let your objection be known.
If no; then Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur.

Kindest regards;

}:>

I am interested in what you are playing with, I have made a few setups that use some of the parts that you have,, that kind of made me hope to get another step by step of the interactions and stuff.

Now that MH has decided to stop maybe you can keep it simple for starters,, explaining the thought behind things,, and as the build progresses maybe all of us can "be on the same page" if you will,,
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: minnie on October 28, 2014, 05:34:29 PM



   Scorch,
            you're obviously a very genuine person. I think it would be great if
 you document progress and give results.
     The piece of equipment you're testing looks very well engineered and
 no doubt will provide reliable results.
   Thank you
               John.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 09, 2014, 05:17:02 PM
11/9/14

Hello everybody.  :)

Just a quick update:
I've been very busy this last two weeks with many other priorities and projects that I have been completing (before winter sets in) and I simply haven't completed any additional assembly of this hobby-experiment.
Including but not limited to- Cutting down and processing large, dead, elm trees on the property, tearing out a wall and replacing an 80 year old tub faucet, building a "lean-to" shed next to garage complete with frame, roof, panels and finish, attending three different furry parties at three different locations, replaced transmission in step van #2, assemble a nixie tube clock kit, winterize some doors and windows and etcetera... All while, also, performing on various private contract obligations.... So, yes, the last two weeks have been pretty busy around here.... :P

I do intend to complete more soon and, of course, if anybody else is working on this experiment; they are certainly welcome to share here.
When it comes to peer review of a specific experiment; the more the better.  :)

Kindest regards.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 14, 2014, 02:43:12 AM
11/13/14

Hello all.  :)

I finally got around to completing some more assembly of the G1 today.
This is the three phase alternator stator.

No challenges building this sub-assembly and very straightforward.

Although I suggest that, as an educational-experimental device, the manufacturer should consider actually providing red and blue coils to go with the red, blue, and green coils of the drawings representing all three phases.
The separate colors would look cool in the acrylic frame and make it easier to keep track of the phases and wiring.

I did stray away from the original specifications, just a little, and placed the jumper on the other side of the switches instead of having the wires reach around to the other side of the switches per the drawing.
The circuit is still the same and the switches will merely operate in the opposite direction to do the same things.

The switches provide for the capabilities of reconfiguring the three phase alternator, on the fly, so that a simple flip of the switch changes from "Delta" to "Star" configuration or any combination between.

That is all for now.

Hope to complete more soon.

Kindest regards.

}:>

PS: Just finished watching the new video about John Bedini's stuff and found that to be very interesting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI)
It appears that JB was right all along and he did show us way back then.
Apparently I, and others, merely fail to get it until it's spelled out . . . one baby step at a time...
And most are not taking advantage of the mechanical output such as simply installing a high efficiency, three phase, alternator with phase modification switches. . .

JB's stuff does appear to work but there is a lot of 'fine tuning' here and there to obtain highest efficiencies and I am inclined to go back to some of those old experiments for further review.


These images were originally 4608 X 3440 pixels and have been significantly reduced to fit this web site.
Please forgive any failure of this web site to handle large, or even medium, sized images and text wrap in a logical, common sense, manner like it used to do.
(Such as thumbnail preview to save bandwidth, link to image in new window, and/or ensuring that page and forum text not effected by images.)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 14, 2014, 04:48:03 PM
Scorch:

Quote
PS: Just finished watching the new video about John Bedini's stuff and found that to be very interesting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoz5vgkTOI)
It appears that JB was right all along and he did show us way back then.
Apparently I, and others, merely fail to get it until it's spelled out . . . one baby step at a time...
And most are not taking advantage of the mechanical output such as simply installing a high efficiency, three phase, alternator with phase modification switches. . .

JB's stuff does appear to work but there is a lot of 'fine tuning' here and there to obtain highest efficiencies and I am inclined to go back to some of those old experiments for further review.

There is nothing in that clip.  It's just an attempt to sell more books.

Between Aaron and Peter, they have 45 years worth of experience with Bedini motors.  They make a claim about how to get over unity from a Bedini motor, they have a running setup in the clip, and yet they make no attempt to make any output measurements.

Aaron acknowledged that a Bedini motor loses 70% of the source battery power, and only transfers 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  Then he makes a big lie by stating that even though the charging battery is only getting 30% of the source battery energy, it will be recharged up to 90%.   So Aaron is claiming that some "magic" happens.

In another bizarre twist, Aaron is incapable of making the distinction between mechanical output and waste heat.  Aaron believes the bearing friction and the air friction of the spinning rotor is "unaccounted for mechanical output" when in fact it's useless waste heat output that forms part of the 70% of useless waste heat output of the motor.

It's very similar to the fact that Aaron does not understand the physics and energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is COP >1 which is ridiculous.

So there is nothing new in that latest video from Aaron and Peter.  The only thing they did was add a pick-up coil and FWBR to drive a bank of LEDs.  Big deal, experimenters have been doing that for years.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 14, 2014, 05:08:59 PM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Sorry to learn none these systems ever work in your reality.

In my reality, I do believe Dr. Peter Lindemann is honest and after a preliminary review of the Bedini trilogy and included HD video, I have already gained new knowledge after just a few minutes of quick review, I'm now ready to try some new experiments (such as operating in attraction mode for better efficiency and higher RPM), and I do believe my money was well spent.  ;D

And, BTW, it appears the potentiometer on the G1 will allow me to produce relatively the same effect as Bedini's "Trigger Shift Switch" and "Common Ground Mode" where the current will rise and slowly fall back with increased rpm and, of course, combined pulse motor & 3-phase rectified output.

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

There is nothing in that clip.  It's just an attempt to sell more books.

Between Aaron and Peter, they have 45 years worth of experience with Bedini motors.  They make a claim about how to get over unity from a Bedini motor, they have a running setup in the clip, and yet they make no attempt to make any output measurements.

Aaron acknowledged that a Bedini motor loses 70% or the source battery power, and only transfers 30% of the source battery power into the charging battery.  Then he makes a big lie by stating that even though the charging battery is only getting 30% of the source batery energy, it will be recharged up to 90%.   So Aaron is claiming that some "magic" happens.

In another bizarre twist, Aaron is incapable of making the distinction between mechanical output and waste heat.  Aaron believes the bearing friction and the air friction of the spinning rotor is "unaccounted for mechanical output" when in fact it's useless waste heat output that forms part of the 70% of useless waste heat output of the motor.

It's very similar to the fact that Aaron does not understand the physics and energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is COP >1 which is ridiculous.

So there is nothing new in that latest video from Aaron and Peter.  The only thing they did was add a pick-up coil and FWBR to drive a bank of LEDs.  Big deal, experimenters have been doing that for years.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 14, 2014, 05:39:38 PM
Scorch:

Unfortunately you have to take nearly every statement from Aaron and Peter with a grain of salt.  They are just two ordinary guys with a very limited understanding of electronics that have been winging it this whole time.  Neither of them has any educational training in electronics and with one scratch, it shows.

I remember seeing debates in Bedini forums over things like, "Are all North facing magnets better than all South facing?"  For the massive "Windmill motor" (What did it actually do?) Bedini himself made statements that it had to be oriented differently depending on whether you were in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere.  Both of these things are nonsense.  I believe the giant Windmill motor was sold for scrap.

So as far as operating in attraction mode goes, getting better efficiency and a higher RPM is highly suspect.  There is no real difference between attraction mode and repulsion mode when it comes to driving the rotor.  If you do a quick test and do observe differences, then you have to investigate more.  You have to do a precise timing analysis of what is happening in the attraction and repulsion modes.  You have to track the voltages, currents, and the electrical power flow and the mechanical power flow into the spinning rotor.  It's not necessarily easy to make these kinds of precise measurements, but with some determination it can be done.  The conclusion will be that there is no real difference between operating the motor in attraction mode vs. repulsion mode.  Likewise, among some Bedini enthusiasts, there is a belief that "North is better than South" when there is no difference between the two.

They make a clip promoting a Bedini motor as a potential over unity device when you factor in everything properly.  Forgetting the flaws in their logic about the mechanical output power, look at that clip again.  They measured the input power with two multimeters.  They made no attempt whatsoever to measure the output power in the charging battery, and they made no attempt whatsoever to measure the output power into the bank of LEDs - and yet that is the thrust of their whole presentation.  The mind boggles sometimes.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 14, 2014, 07:02:57 PM
@MH, some things for you (and others) to consider:

1. As you may recall the MHOP has, by virtue of the Secret of DPDT, the ability to run in either attractive or repulsive mode by simply flicking a switch, then easily adjusting timing and dwell for optimum performance in either mode. In either mode, though, as with most Pulse Motors, half the coil and magnet fields are still "wasted", not doing much if anything to help drive the rotor. Only "repultraction" PMs, using both ends of the rotor magnet and both ends of the coil's field, are making efficient use of the fields; they can be nearly twice as efficient electrically than single-polarity motors but are much harder to make from a mechanical viewpoint. My Marinov Slab is one such  "repultraction" motor and is very efficient in that regard. In my own experience with single-polarity motors I find that repulsive-mode operation gives easier self-starting (slightly) and so I generally prefer that mode. The PerPenduPetulum, operating on room light hitting a solar cell, is one such self-starting repulsive pulse motor that also works well in attractive mode but doesn't self-start as easily in that mode. With cored coils, it should be obvious that an attractive mode motor will just sit there at the "cogging point" when a pulse is applied to the coil and will need an external spin to get started, whereas a repulsive mode motor will be pushed away from the potential well formed by the core-magnet attraction, and may selfstart. (coil-rotor numbers that are relatively prime may self-start in either polarity (example 5 and 6 or 3 and 4)  but most Pulse Motors have equal or non-relatively-prime numbers of coils and magnets (example 2 and 4 or 4 and 4.)

2. There is a difference between behaviours of magnetic systems that are dominated by North Poles, and those dominated by South Poles. It takes sensitive testing to reveal this difference, and such testing (in an apparatus using Helmholz coils to null the Earth's field) has revealed to my satisfaction that it is NOT something inherent in the magnets... but rather it is an effect of the Earth's magnetic field in the locality where the testing is conducted. This effect is most easily demonstrated in one's own laboratory by the "sliding magnet" phenomenon: When a flat NdBFe magnet is allowed to slide down a slope or ramp made of a conductive, nonmagnetic material like thick aluminum or copper or brass, the magnet will slide stably with one pole facing the ramp metal, but will "jump off" or levitate if the other pole is facing the ramp. This effect has been demonstrated several times, is easy to repeat... and depends on your orientation wrt the Earth's field.  For a given magnetic latitude the "lifting pole" is opposite, in the opposite hemisphere. And in locations where the "dip angle" of the Earth's field is large, the effect is correspondingly great, so it seems to work better at high latitudes.

3. The effect noted above is small and will not be noticed in most builds of magnet motors. I seriously doubt if Bedini's large motors would show it... but it may be possible that the big "windmill" motor was so very _inefficient_ that changes in orientation wrt the Earth's field would have made a perceptible difference. This of course is an empirical question that could (relatively easily) be answered by some _real scientist_ who could make some _true experiments_ with the system. However, the very idea of the True Experiment seems to be completely lost on the pretend-scientists Murakami, Lindemann, Bedini, and the rest of that ilk.


Just what is a True Experiment, one may well ask? Just put the term into a Google search window and read the links that come up. I am not making this stuff up.
The basic idea (leaving out random assortment, blinding, null hypothesis testing, etc.) is that an Independent Variable (IV) is controlled and varied in a rational way by the experimenter, and one or more Dependent Variables (DVs) are monitored for changes that _truly depend_ on the variations of the IV. All other experimental variables or conditions are either held strictly constant, or are varied in such a random fashion (Latin Squares design, etc) that their effects can be expected to cancel out and not affect the overall statistically analyzed results. In the case of the sliding magnet down a ramp, for example, the experimenter might vary the azimuthal angle of the apparatus (the IV) and monitor the behaviour of the sliding magnet as it slides down the ramp with either polarity facing the ramp (the DVs). Plotting results like this, one very quickly finds a strong azimuthal dependence on the behaviour. This fact then suggests explanations... testable explanations.... as to the relationship between the azimuthal angle and the behaviour of the magnet, the most reasonable and easily testable one being the effect of the environment. Some possibilities include lumps of stuff in the laboratory, drafts from the air conditioner/heater ducts... and the Earth's field. Further True Experiments can then be designed in an effort to _rule out_ these possibilities one by one, such as testing in a different location, testing within an open Helmholz Coil mag compass calibration fixture, getting on an airplane and flying to the other hemisphere, etc etc. Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2014, 02:25:58 AM
Scorch:





Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

Note the coils are fairly wide and narrow, and note that the coils are in fairly close proximity to each other since the rotor disk is relatively thin.  When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

So here is what you get for each coil:  100 units of torque energy minus 70 units of torque energy due to magnetic field self-cancellation for a net 30 units of torque energy.

Single coil pulsing:  100 units of torque energy
Both coils pulsing:  60 units of torque energy.

Mike Kantz probably thought that he would be getting about 200 units of torque energy per pulse, but in fact he is only getting about 60 units of torque energy per pulse.  Therefore, it's highly likely that the pulse motor will perform better if you only pulse with one set of coils and not both sets.  You pay a price for all of that magnetic field self-cancellation also.  You have battery energy expended that goes "nowhere" due to the self-cancellation of the magnetic field.  It just becomes waste heat resistive losses in the coils, i.e.; battery energy poured down the drain.

Please see the attached graphic.  The orange area represents where there will be lots of self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

MileHigh
MileHigh ???

This is totally incorrect.
By useing a coil on either side of the magnet as you depicted,you can almost halve the P/in for the same amount of pull force on the magnet-rotor torque remains the same for half the P/in.The apposing coils do NOT cancel out any magnetic field,in fact,the opposite is true.The field between the two coils is very concentrated,and thus the strongest part of the field.

I am supprised that you made such an incorrect statement :o

EDIT-In fact i believe that useing a coil either side of a magnet should increase torque,while reducing the P/in by half.The reason is because insted of only having two magnetic fields acting apon one another,we would have four magnetic fields acting apon one another-while creating a concentrated field between the two coils.This concentration of the magnetic field should also add to the pull force(torque)on top of the four interacting magnetic fields.

Quote TK: Only by conducting True Experiments can real cause-and-effect relationships be ascertained, in any field of research.

@MH
Have you actually tried said experiment regarding your statement
Quote: When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

NO NO NO
If we are to teach or help those in need MH,we must make sure we are correct with the information given to those that ask for it. ;)

Having a coil either side of a magnet(in this case ,a rotor magnet)is by far more efficient per watts of P/in than a single coil on one side of the rotor magnet. There is no cancelation of magnetic fields between two coils in this situation,but an increase in magnetic field strength.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 03:47:53 PM
TK:

Interesting discussion.  I was thinking along purer lines.  Something like a spinning rotor and a single drive coil, no external magnetic field.  When you flip the polarity of the energizing of the coil, will the ability to impart energy on the rotor be different?  For either polarity it's an integral of a force vs. angle curve and there is no reason to believe that they will be different because the system has symmetry whether you are pulling or pushing.

Ha ha I just had a great idea.  This idea is fair game for anybody in the pulse motor build-off.  Coils are always energized with DC, typically from a 12-volt battery.  With a microcontroller you could drive the coil with a custom waveform.  Perhaps driving the coil with an initial  voltage over-shoot spike will give you faster repulsion force in place to meet the spinning rotor magnet.  The voltage spike gets the current flowing in the coil more quickly.  You can imagine a simple program where the microcontroler is triggered and then it just reads out a look-up table in memory to playback the waveform on an analog output pin.  Then you connect that to a beefy voltage servo-amplifier to drive the coil.  You could do one from scratch using an op-amp connected to a big pair of transistors.  The app note for that is floating around.  Or perhaps you could cheat and use a car audio amplifier.

So instead of powering the coil from a straight 12-volt battery, you are powering it from a high-current voltage servo-amplifier connected to a +/-36 volt power supply (as an example).  You can jolt the coil with a custom waveform and see how high you can push the RPM while monitoring the power consumption.  You could literally start to cook your coil if you were not careful.

You have the microcontroller reading ticks from the rotor so that the software could measure the rotor frequency.  It could then multiply the rotor frequency by 'x' to generate the clock for the outputting of the waveform.  That way the length of the customizable pulse would track the rotor RPM.

So there you have it:  A background interrupt-driven programmable timer function that outputs the waveform in memory (triggered by a pick-up coil on the motor) and in the foreground code you measure the rotor frequency and then multiply it by a variable 'x' to generate the output waveform clock.  If your Arduino board has an LCD display you could display the RPM also.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
P.S

My last post is for attraction and repulsion modes,as i only wrote repulsion mode in there-and cant seem to edit post now?.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 04:05:11 PM
Tinman:

This effect is dependent on geometry.  The more the coils resemble thin disks, and if the rotor magnet is also a thin disk, then the effect will be more pronounced.

You may have tried taking two equal bar magnets and pushing opposite poles together.  Have you every noticed that the repulsion force sometimes disappears when you push them all the way together?

Please look carefully at the attached diagram.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/ (https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2014, 04:26:26 PM
Tinman:

This effect is dependent on geometry.  The more the coils resemble thin disks, and if the rotor magnet is also a thin disk, then the effect will be more pronounced.

You may have tried taking two equal bar magnets and pushing opposite poles together.  Have you every noticed that the repulsion force sometimes disappears when you push them all the way together?

Please look carefully at the attached diagram.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/ (https://my.vanderbilt.edu/mrengineering2014/2014/04/matlab-simulations-on-gradient-coil-field-homogeneity-2/)

MileHigh
Simulations MH,and done without a PM between the two coils.This in no way represents how the actual setup being discused performs.

Through much experimenting,i can say with certainty that having a coil each side of the magnet is 100%+ more efficient than having just one coil on one side of the magnet.

When you stated-Quote: Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

Im affraid Mr Quanta was right in this case MH,and these are things you find out with actual test of actual devices-not simulators.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 04:26:39 PM
Tinman:

In further thinking about it I could be wrong.  It depends on the motor configuration for the magnets and coils which I illustrate below.  I was not taking into account about the way the disk magnets on the rotor may be polarized in the Quanta Magnetics motor.

Here is a second go at it:  (coil, rotor magnet, coil where you are looking at the rotor edge-on and in reality the coils and magnet are tall and thin, not wide and flat.)

[s@@@n]  [n---s]  [s@@@n]

The above would represent the start of a repulsion push on the rotor.  In this case the opposing coils would have a strong field between them and it would be very efficient.

However, if the polarity of the rotor magnet is at right angles as shown below, then you would have the cancellation effect taking place.


                 [south]
                 [-]
                 [-]
[s@@@n]  [n]  [n@@@s]

So I qualify my comments in that I was thinking of the second configuration for the rotor.  I am simply not sure of the rotor configuration.  My apologies.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2014, 04:48:26 PM
Tinman:

In further thinking about it I could be wrong.  It depends on the motor configuration for the magnets and coils which I illustrate below.  I was not taking into account about the way the disk magnets on the rotor may be polarized in the Quanta Magnetics motor.

Here is a second go at it:  (coil, rotor magnet, coil where you are looking at the rotor edge-on and in reality the coils and magnet are tall and thin, not wide and flat.)

[s@@@n]  [n---s]  [s@@@n]

The above would represent the start of a repulsion push on the rotor.  In this case the opposing coils would have a strong field between them and it would be very efficient.

However, if the polarity of the rotor magnet is at right angles as shown below, then you would have the cancellation effect taking place.


                 [south]
                 [-]
                 [-]
[s@@@n]  [n]  [n@@@s]

So I qualify my comments in that I was thinking of the second configuration for the rotor.  I am simply not sure of the rotor configuration.  My apologies.

MileHigh
I was going by the diagram you posted(reply 20),and by the way the quanta rotor/coils are set up.
Thin coils,and thin rotor magnets--> (s@n) (ns) (s@n). The fields from the coils dont cancel out each other,in fact,they pull one another tight(if you can picture it that way)-much like stretching a rubber band. Having the two fields also neutralises the side ways pull you get from only one coil acting apon the magnet,and this also adds a little extra rotational force-not much,but a little.Here is the kicker-you hook the two coils up in series(reversed pole of course),and you drop your P/in by half,while maintaining the same(if not slightly more)attraction or repulsion force on the rotor. And believe it or not,attraction mode actually give a slightly higher force output than repulsion mode for the same P/in.

In your second configuration you are creating a bucking field. This is how my L.A.G opperated,and the results are the same as the first configuration.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2014, 05:01:29 PM
Here is a little setup i threw together today to show the results between 1 and 2 coil setup's.

Attraction mode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qE_tg5KUZ8

Repulsion mode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyegkVYMnfw
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 15, 2014, 05:13:00 PM
The most efficient use of the fields involves using "both ends" of a single coil to push or pull on "both ends" of the magnet you are trying to move. This can be done in various ways but a "C" shaped core with the moving magnet passing between the open ends of the core is perhaps the easiest to arrange. I'm sure tinman knows what I'm talking about. In my SNOT testbed I use a homemade C core of soft iron with the coil wound around it and the "rotor" ball passing between the open legs. In this way I am able to use the entire field produced by the coil, concentrated by the core and running between the ends of the C,  to attract the steel ball (which is not a magnet). A magnet rotor would be arranged to pass the rotor magnets through this gap, with opposite poles of the magnet facing the poles of the "C" core for attraction-type PMs, or same poles facing for repulsion-type PMs. This arrangement allows most of the field produced by the coil, both polarities, to interact with both poles of the rotor magnet, producing by far the most thrust-per-ampere.
In the multi-layer Quanta design this is _almost_ achieved by the inner coils, where both poles of the coil are able to affect magnets on the rotor. But the outermost coils still suffer from using only half of the available field.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 06:06:15 PM
I was going by the diagram you posted(reply 20),and by the way the quanta rotor/coils are set up.
Thin coils,and thin rotor magnets--> (s@n) (ns) (s@n). The fields from the coils dont cancel out each other,in fact,they pull one another tight(if you can picture it that way)-much like stretching a rubber band. Having the two fields also neutralises the side ways pull you get from only one coil acting apon the magnet,and this also adds a little extra rotational force-not much,but a little.Here is the kicker-you hook the two coils up in series(reversed pole of course),and you drop your P/in by half,while maintaining the same(if not slightly more)attraction or repulsion force on the rotor. And believe it or not,attraction mode actually give a slightly higher force output than repulsion mode for the same P/in.

In your second configuration you are creating a bucking field. This is how my L.A.G opperated,and the results are the same as the first configuration.

TK:

I hate the term, but I had a "brain fart" with that diagram in post #20.  Do you find it hard to proof-read your own text?  Between that and a keyboard that eats keystrokes sometimes (drives me nuts) I have a hard time sometimes.  I read over my text and my eyes fly by the words and I miss obvious typos.  The whole time I was discussing that diagram I was "seeing" the coils in opposition when in fact they weren't.  It came as a shock.  I can't explain it beyond that.  It's just one of those things that happens sometimes.

So I have to retract a lot of comments where I made a big stink about that.  Also Scorch please accept my apologies because I was mistaken about this issue.

I can see the better performance with two coils in series on either side.  I also watched Tnman's clips.  For your comment about using a "C" core with rotor magnets passing between the gap, yes I think that would make for a really cool looking pulse motor.  Think of tying it in with the microcontroller and amplifier:  When the rotor magnet is approaching the "C" you are in attraction mode.  When the rotor magnet passes TDC, then you flip the polarity and you are in repulsion mode.  Now that would be beyond cool.

I am still flabbergasted that my eyes/brain where not working and the whole time I looked at the diagram I thought the drive coils were in opposition when they weren't.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 06:30:52 PM
Here is a little setup i threw together today to show the results between 1 and 2 coil setup's.

Attraction mode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qE_tg5KUZ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qE_tg5KUZ8)

Repulsion mode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyegkVYMnfw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyegkVYMnfw)

Timan:

I looked at your clips carefully.  I fully agree that two coils in series is better than a single coil like you demonstrated.  It makes perfect sense because you have more field interaction.  Also, note that you did not put the two coils in cancellation mode like I was discussing in earlier posts.  If you flip the connections on one of the coils and redo the tests, you will see what I mean.   Also I was not sure about the polarization of the rotor magnet, and you can see my earlier post that describes that in detail.

Going back to your main test, you (and TK) might be surprised by what I am going to say:  You tested additive drive coils in attraction mode and in repulsion mode.  Attraction mode was tested on one side of the coil pair and repulsion mode was tested on the other side.  The force you measure is dependent on the angle between the magnetic TDC of the coil pair and the rotor magnet and you had decent, but not highly precise control over that.  When you went from the attraction test to the repulsion test the angles were probably different by a small amount.  Not having precise control over the angles and factoring in similar things means that your test results fell within a reasonably expected error tolerance.  60 grams, 65 grams, 70 grams are in fact very similar measurements considering the error tolerances.  So the real conclusion from your experiment is that the attraction and repulsion forces are approximately the same for the same configuration based on your data plus error tolerance.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 15, 2014, 07:08:42 PM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

You already wrote that the Conductor of the all his electronic experiments, including those found on his youtube channel ( www.youtube.com/user/PMMG4HYBRID (http://www.youtube.com/user/PMMG4HYBRID) ), and the Inventor of all the Quanta Magnetics devices and kits ( http://quantamagnetics.com (http://quantamagnetics.com) ); "knows very little or nothing about electronics". And, now, you have written these same things about Aaron and Peter.

Are you also making the same claim regarding John Bedini?
Are you of the position that John Bedini doesn't have any training or a very limited understanding of electronics?

Please respond.

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

Unfortunately you have to take nearly every statement from Aaron and Peter with a grain of salt.  They are just two ordinary guys with a very limited understanding of electronics that have been winging it this whole time.  Neither of them has any educational training in electronics and with one scratch, it shows.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 15, 2014, 07:59:38 PM
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Apology accepted and don't worry about it.
All is forgiven and we are all here merely to learn, experience, and gain knowledge from this particular plain of existence and our soul evolution.

}:>




So I have to retract a lot of comments where I made a big stink about that.  Also Scorch please accept my apologies because I was mistaken about this issue.


MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 15, 2014, 08:54:16 PM
Scorch:

No I am not making the same claims about John Bedini.  I suspect he knows his stuff but he doesn't let on.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 15, 2014, 09:25:20 PM
11/15/14

Hello everybody.  :)

Just another build photo.
This is the pulse motor rotor consisting of two polocarbonate disks complete with stainless steel screws, magnet retainers, and magnets.

These are very powerful, N52, magnets rated at 115 pound pull and I must empathize with Willie E. Coyote every time I am working with magnets this powerful...  ;D
See: www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DX8C-N52&cat=168 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DX8C-N52&cat=168)

One must be VERY careful not to lose control of these magnets.
They must be handled with great respect and held firmly and care must be taken not to allow the magnet to be attracted to another magnet or attract, in, something unwanted from the work bench such as a wrench, screwdriver, hot soldering iron or a barrel of TNT... :P

It has also been my experience that the tolerances in these QM kits are pretty tight so I always make sure the shaft is installed in the disks and/or hubs before final tightening of hardware; otherwise parts may not line up properly.

}:>

PS: Just discovered I ordered the wrong size disk magnets for the other rotors and now waiting for parts again...  :P
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 15, 2014, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from Milehigh:


"The magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out"
.


What a QUACK!

Yet even more preposterous malarky from the supercilious fraud:


"The real conclusion from your experiment is that the attraction and repulsion forces are approximately the same for the same configuration based on your data plus error tolerance".
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 15, 2014, 11:36:53 PM
@Tinman,


               The test really demonstrates very little the way you did it. You need to test the pull of a coil of twice the windings on one side then compare the pull to the two coils of half the turns on both sides. You'll find that if you double the windings on one side your imaginary advantage will disappear. The advantage comes from two pole attraction to a ferrite rotor as TK points out.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2014, 04:05:40 AM
@Tinman,


               The test really demonstrates very little the way you did it. You need to test the pull of a coil of twice the windings on one side then compare the pull to the two coils of half the turns on both sides. You'll find that if you double the windings on one side your imaginary advantage will disappear. The advantage comes from two pole attraction to a ferrite rotor as TK points out.
Sorry synchro,but you are incorrect. The way i carried out the test is correct,and doubleing up on windings will change nothing in regards to what i have shown. Sure,add double the windings to the coil,drop your P/in and retain the same pull/push force. But then you just add another coil the same to the other side of the magnet to once again half the P/in,and retain your pull/push force.Regardless to what ever you do to your coil on one side of the magnet to increase the magnetic field strength and drop the power consumption,you simply put another coil of the same type on the other side to once again half the P/in and retain your pull/push force.Also by adding another coil to the other side of the magnet on the rotor,you eliminate the side ways pull/push on the rotor,and the system becomes ballanced.

MH is also correct when he said the repulsion and attraction force is the same,takeing into account test error margin's. After conducting a more precise test in regards to attraction and repulsion force with a given P/in,the results were exactly the same.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 16, 2014, 07:31:33 AM
Quote from Milehigh:


"The magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out"
.


What a QUACK!

Yet even more preposterous malarky from the supercilious fraud:


"The real conclusion from your experiment is that the attraction and repulsion forces are approximately the same for the same configuration based on your data plus error tolerance".

Synchro1, you can kiss my ass.  This kind of nonsensical idiocy from you has been going on for well more than a full year.  You made a complete ass of yourself when ConradElectro was testing his bifilar coil.  Your stupid behaviour may be the reason he stopped sharing his test results on this forum.  You make stupid idiotic comments like the ones above for your own cheap thrills and mental masturbation.

For Christ's sake, you are a 50-year-old man, can't you act like one?

I would like to see you post an apology to me in this thread and also state that you are going to smarten up and stop your stupid asinine behaviour from this point onwards.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2014, 09:23:27 AM
It would seem i can find no end to the amount of turns on a coil that can be had without it effecting the pull force on the magnet-as per my setup shown in previous video's on this thread.

I started with a former with 500 turns of .31mm wire.The P/in was 24 volts @ 620mA. The pull force as measured by my setup was 55 gram's. I added another 500 turns,and the pull force remained at 55 gram's,while the P/in dropped by half. Then i added another 500 turns,and another,and have at present 2500 turns on the coil former. My P/in now is 24 volts @ 109mA,and the pull force still remains at 55 gram's. This is without the second coil on the other side of the magnet,which as we have seen will halve the P/in again,without effecting the pull force on the magnet.

My question is this-->how far can this be taken?-how many turns can be placed apon each former before we see a reduction in pull force?. Is this an infinite situation where the applied force apon the magnet that can be turned into mechanical rotational force that exceeds the P/in requirement?.

Have we been  looking at this all wrong,in that we try to keep resistive losses low,when infact i am seeing no change what so ever in raising the resistance by 500%. If i can get the resistance to 5k ohms,then at 24 volts we would only consume 4.8 milliamps,which would be only 115mW-for 55 grams of pull force. This is a far cry from the 14.8 watts we started with.

Dose any one know the limit here?
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2014, 01:44:41 PM
As you know, the field from an electromagnet depends on "amp-turns". With any real wire, the more wire you use the greater the resistance and the less current will flow for a given supply voltage. Over a certain range, the relationship is linear or nearly so; that is, you can add turns, which add resistance, but the field remains the same because as turn number goes up, current goes down and the field remains the same. However you will eventually reach a point with smaller wire or lots of turns where the relationship is no longer linear and it will require more voltage in your supply to overcome the resistance of the added turns and keep the current from "falling off the cliff" and becoming too small to sustain the field at the required strength.
In your experiments you just haven't hit that range yet.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 16, 2014, 05:08:15 PM
@Tinman,


Joseph Newman has reached the limit you speak of. I attached a picture of his three ton electric motor below:


@Milehigh,


The magnet core output coil Conradelectro tested needed to be SHORTED to achieve the "Lenz Propulsion" effect I forecasted. You impudently prevented Conradelectro from testing the coil with a capacitive load as I instructed him to, causing me great embarrassment, and failed test results. Doug Konzen clearly demonstrated the same effect in this video:


Quote from Doug's Youtube description:

"This video is meant to show that with coils short-circuited, and also with a stack of magnets behind the cores of the generator coils, you can get the motor to speed up".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaEdGPO7C8&list=UUQ6H_iTqiOiZHbdU-Rjf_eg&index=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaEdGPO7C8&list=UUQ6H_iTqiOiZHbdU-Rjf_eg&index=1)


Connecting a capacitive load between the coil leads, contrasted to strong resistors, amounts to the same difference dead shorting would have compared to an open circuit. 

Another point you're confused about;

The power of the N pole facing monopole magnet rotor derives from the superior strength of the south pole of the electro magnet solenoid coil.

"Experiment: In our experiment we used a bar magnet, ruler, and paper clips. We used a ruler to measure the distance of the force exerted from each pole by pulling paper clips. Three attempts were measured. In the first and second attempt the South Pole started attracting the paper clips at 1 inch and in the third attempt it attracted paperclips at inch. In the first and second attempt the North Pole attracted paper clips at inch and in the third attempt it attracted paper clips at inch. Conclusion: Based on our experiment we concluded that the South Pole had a greater magnetic force than the North Pole".

Lastly, the Tesla series bifilar coil is not a D.C. coil!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 16, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
Synchro1:

You have been on this site several times today, Sunday November 16.  You have certainly read my response to your foolish posting, yet no comment from you?  You read how TinMan confirmed my interpretation of his test results and he went one step further and made better tests confirming the results again.  That's where you called my comments "malarky" and you called me a fraud.  Are you implying that you are so stupid that you don't even understand error tolerances?

No response from you?   No apology from you?  You are a spineless coward, and apparently the only thing that you can do now is run away.  I have seen this ridiculous and immature behaviour from you in the past.

Today marks the day where your stupid asinine behaviour comes to an end.  Grow the f*ck up and act like a man.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: shylo on November 16, 2014, 11:43:57 PM
To TK &Tinnman, I was testing this today power consumption can be reduced .
If you use both sides of the electro-magnet.
I added resistance to a single coil but got no response or atleast not noticeable.
Releasing a permanet magnet from an e-mag creates a spike ,you can catch it.
Good stuff, Thanks.
artv
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 17, 2014, 12:32:37 AM
11/16/14

Hello all.  :)

I managed to complete some more G1 assembly today.

This is the three phase alternator rotors.

It does appear to be very nice engineering here including dual rotors that provide for magnetic flux on both sides of the coils for increased efficiency.
As compared to a more conventional alternator that might only have a single magnetic rotor inside a field winding surrounded with energy robbing iron cores, steel housings, hardware and etcetera.

Pretty straightforward assembly without any challenges other than the occasional plastic bur in the tapped screw holes.
Rotors are 6.375" diameter and appear to be acrylic.
Each rotor has 16 poles.
Magnets are-

16 pcs of Countersunk Magnets 1"L x 1/2"W x 1/8" Thick N42 - North face
www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-N&cat=173 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-N&cat=173)
16 pcs of Countersunk Magnets 1"L x 1/2"W x 1/8" Thick N42 - South face
www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-S&cat=173 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-S&cat=173)
Also sold as pairs-
www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-P&cat=173 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082CS-P&cat=173)
And-
32 pcs of 1"L x 1/2"W x 1/8" Thick N42
www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX082)

Countersunk magnets are mounted with stainless steel screws then additional magnets merely sit on top of these mounted magnets and held in place their own magnetism.
Although, if I wanted to operate such an alternator at a high RPM, I would probably glue these 'face' magnets in place.

And, BTW, it really does help to have a magnetic pole identifier tool for building such things.
I used to merely use a magnet of known polarity but I am spoiled now that I have an electronic detector.   8)

That is all for now.

Enjoy the experimentation, learning, and gaining of knowledge.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2014, 04:51:33 AM
11/16/14

Hello all.  :)

(snip)
And, BTW, it really does help to have a magnetic pole identifier tool for building such things.
I used to merely use a magnet of known polarity but I am spoiled now that I have an electronic detector.   8)

(snip)

Yes, the electronic pole detector is a neat item. I hope you didn't spend too much for yours! Here's a very simple circuit using the sensor chip and a couple LEDs from a worn-out computer case fan, and one 10 cent resistor:

(This circuit can also be used, obviously, for various other purposes like switching a bipolar pulse motor, etc. )
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 17, 2014, 02:40:59 PM
Synchro1, I don't know what magic you worked to squeeze in posting #63 but it doesn't matter.  You are just repeating foolishness that was rebutted a long time ago.  I am certain that you remember Gyula discussing the flaws with the paperclip experiment but like some immature child you are "forgetting" now.  I will keep this short because it is off-topic to this thread.  Everything I said to you earlier still applies.  You're a spineless coward.  Stop the nonsensical idiocy and GROW UP.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on November 17, 2014, 09:51:48 PM
You impudently prevented Conradelectro from testing the coil with a capacitive load as I instructed him to, causing me great embarrassment, and failed test results.
Any attempt to test an over unity device allways end up in embarrassment and failed results. Such people avoids public attention for a while.
This is something any over unity inventor must live with. They will fail every time they try.


However, there are inventors who test fusion. Still not more energy out than you put in, but for sure more USEFUL energy out than you put in.


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 18, 2014, 12:16:06 AM
Any attempt to test an over unity device allways end up in embarrassment and failed results. Such people avoids public attention for a while.
This is something any over unity inventor must live with. They will fail every time they try.


However, there are inventors who test fusion. Still not more energy out than you put in, but for sure more USEFUL energy out than you put in.


Vidar


Doug Konzen's magnet backed ferrite core generator coil would test positively as an overunity coil if he wired a capacitor in series with a fast switching diode between the coil leads instead of dead shorting them. Not only would the coil speed the rotor up and lower input in the sweet range of one half inch, it would generate and store additional current from the interaction of the backing magnets with the output coil windings. The generator coil backing magnets produce a separate and very powerful oscillating field that crosses the output coil windings. This extra field oscillation couples additively with rotor induction. Looping the stored magnet core generator capacitor output back to source by simply attaching wires directly from the capacitor leads to the power source electrodes would result in a COP>1. It's incomprehensible how wicked people like Milehigh can be allowed to act as vituperative as he has shown with no administrative sanctioning to cover a truth so simple and easy to replicate.   
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 18, 2014, 07:11:54 PM
If it's so simple and easy to replicate then go ahead and replicate it Synchro1.  Of course this is all fantasy talk from you, and we have seen it in the past.  Prove us wrong and replicate it showing your schematic, the full measurements, and the complete timing diagram.

Whether you really believe and act the way you do for real, or this is all a big put-on and you get some kind of psychological gratification and thrills from acting the way you do, either way it indicates that you have some psychological problems.  You keep on acting the fool and contributing no value whatsoever to this forum, then you will have to worry about administrative sanctioning coming down hard on you.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 18, 2014, 08:15:39 PM
There you go again Synchro with your "patented" misrepresentation of the work of others and your straw-man arguments and misunderstandings of what is happening. Nice job Synchro, at least you are being consistent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk)
In this video you can see the little core biasing magnets attached to the outer ends of the cores if you look carefully.

I can't at present seem to find my video explicitly demonstrating the effect of the biasing magnets on the cores but they do have a dramatic effect, and this is caused by the pre-saturating of the cores by the external field of the bias magnets, so that the cores are now pushed to different regions of their B-H hysteresis curves by the applied current pulses in the wires. This can indeed make the motor more efficient in terms of rotor torque vs. applied current, and the mechanism by which this is so is well understood. At least by some of us.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on November 18, 2014, 08:21:25 PM

Doug Konzen's magnet backed ferrite core generator coil would test positively as an overunity coil if he wired a capacitor in series with a fast switching diode between the coil leads instead of dead shorting them. Not only would the coil speed the rotor up and lower input in the sweet range of one half inch, it would generate and store additional current from the interaction of the backing magnets with the output coil windings. The generator coil backing magnets produce a separate and very powerful oscillating field that crosses the output coil windings. This extra field oscillation couples additively with rotor induction. Looping the stored magnet core generator capacitor output back to source by simply attaching wires directly from the capacitor leads to the power source electrodes would result in a COP>1. It's incomprehensible how wicked people like Milehigh can be allowed to act as vituperative as he has shown with no administrative sanctioning to cover a truth so simple and easy to replicate.
No. You're wrong. There is loss in every component you put into a circuit. The more you get, the more loss there will be.
Makes sense, doesn't it?


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 18, 2014, 09:00:29 PM
There you go again Synchro with your "patented" misrepresentation of the work of others and your straw-man arguments and misunderstandings of what is happening. Nice job Synchro, at least you are being consistent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk)
In this video you can see the little core biasing magnets attached to the outer ends of the cores if you look carefully.

I can't at present seem to find my video explicitly demonstrating the effect of the biasing magnets on the cores but they do have a dramatic effect, and this is caused by the pre-saturating of the cores by the external field of the bias magnets, so that the cores are now pushed to different regions of their B-H hysteresis curves by the applied current pulses in the wires. This can indeed make the motor more efficient in terms of rotor torque vs. applied current, and the mechanism by which this is so is well understood. At least by some of us.


As usual it's practically impossible to identify anything in your video apart from the extensive rubbish pile that clutters your rat's nested habitation. The magnets Doug uses have to be many thousands of times stronger then those tiny neo disks you appear to use, as mine are, and retard the coil's pole formation to phase shift past TDC causing "Lenz Propulsion". My version uses diametric tube cores and a diametric spinner. You demonstrate no evidence of rotor speed up in your Orbette video.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 18, 2014, 11:30:09 PM
11/18/14

Hey MileHigh.  :)

Is it possible that John Bedini does in fact try to teach us and he actually does 'let on' for those with open minds, eyes to see, and ears to hear?
Is it possible that educational materials such as the "energy from the vacuum" video series and the three new reference books (and video) from JB actually do contain very useful information well worth the cost of a few reference books or DVDs?
Is it possible that those who negatively dismiss such reference materials as being "to expensive" or "they are just selling books" or "these systems will never work" may not EVER 'get it'?

The fact is-
If one doesn't bother to actually obtain and study the reference material and/or conduct a peer review experiment then; one has absolutely ZERO authority regarding said reference material he didn't read or study or experiment he didn't replicate.

Case in point-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtiNum9MpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtiNum9MpM)

}:>



Scorch:

No I am not making the same claims about John Bedini.  I suspect he knows his stuff but he doesn't let on.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 18, 2014, 11:41:41 PM
11/18/14

Hey TenselKoala   :)

Thank you very much for the references.
And, no, I did not spend to much.

Although this is a highly subjective term...
"To much" for one may only be a mere pittance for another.

I think it was around $20 which, in my reality, is a certainly a fair price to pay for a good tool for which I did not have to spend my time and energy obtaining parts and building and mounting my own DIY version.

Versus something like this-
www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Pole-Detector-Identifier-Tester-for-Magnets/dp/B0019F90JW/ (http://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Pole-Detector-Identifier-Tester-for-Magnets/dp/B0019F90JW/)

It has saved me a lot of time and even helped me find a misaligned magnet on one of my SSG projects so; well worth the investment in my reality.  ;D

Kindest regards;

}:>


Yes, the electronic pole detector is a neat item. I hope you didn't spend too much for yours! Here's a very simple circuit using the sensor chip and a couple LEDs from a worn-out computer case fan, and one 10 cent resistor:

(This circuit can also be used, obviously, for various other purposes like switching a bipolar pulse motor, etc. )
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 12:53:36 AM
Scorch:

Quote
Is it possible that John Bedini does in fact try to teach us and he actually does 'let on' for those with open minds, eyes to see, and ears to hear?

No, unfortunately he does not teach.  What he does is mislead with the goal of creating an "aura" around a simple pulse motor in order to sell battery chargers, books, and DVDs.  He does not teach that an inductor is a current-based passive energy storage device which is functionally equivalent to a mechanical flywheel.  He does not attempt to explain "v = L di/dt" and "i = 1/L integral v dt" in layman's terms.  The answer to how a Bedini motor works is right there in those two equations.  You know how when you stop a flywheel very quickly and you feel a jolt of force?  That jolt of force is identical to the voltage spike when an inductor discharges across a high resistance.  This is the truth, it's the heart of a Bedini motor, and John Bedini will never tell you this in a million years.  He will not explain the actual mechanism for the inductor charging and discharging and any person that takes an Electronics 101 course will learn all about this.  He never discusses the timing analysis for the Bedini motor, which is a pulse circuit.  Understanding how a pulse circuit works is all about understanding the timing analysis.  That is what you really have to open your mind to, and go past the BS smokescreen that surrounds the whole "Bedini show."

Quote
Is it possible that educational materials such as the "energy from the vacuum" video series and the three new reference books (and video) from JB actually do contain very useful information well worth the cost of a few reference books or DVDs?

I think I saw some of that material on YouTube ages ago and I was not impressed.  I can't say anything about the books but I can make some inferences.  The books probably contain 10% good technical information that is at a beginners level, and a whole bunch of nonsensical fluff about "radiant energy" and such.  Will the books discuss how to make proper power-in and power-out measurements using some low-pass filtering techniques and other strategies?  I am assuming that the answer is no.

Quote
Is it possible that those who negatively dismiss such reference materials as being "to expensive" or "they are just selling books" or "these systems will never work" may not EVER 'get it'?

I 'get it' perfectly, it's as clear as a bell.  The question is do the Yahoo Bedini replicators get it?  Last time I looked about two years ago they were lost Bedini sheep.  What about you?   Will you get it, or will you just go through the motions like most of the other Bedini followers and buy into the BS?  I can challenge you:  Make proper power-in and power-out measurements with your motor.  You never see that done by the Bedini inner circle, or by the typical Bedini experimenter, and certainly not by the Quanta Magnetics guy.  Anybody can build a pulse motor and make it charge a battery.  The challenge is to actually do proper measurements and do a proper analysis.

Quote
The fact is-
If one doesn't bother to actually obtain and study the reference material and/or conduct a peer review experiment then; one has absolutely ZERO authority regarding said reference material he didn't read or study or experiment he didn't replicate.

I agree but not in the way you are thinking.  You have to study and understand electronics, then do some experiments, and make proper measurements and do a proper analysis.  You have ZERO authority if instead of doing things properly, you instead gobble up pseudoscience nonsense from the wrong people.  You have to use your knowledge to have a properly functioning BS detector.  If you don't have that knowledge, then undertake to learn.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 01:12:09 AM
Scorch:

Quote
Case in point-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtiNum9MpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtiNum9MpM)

I agree 100% that the Mythbusters guys totally screwed up the Bedini motor analysis because they did not really build a Bedini motor.

However, the other clip is equally bad.  I watched it years ago but I remember it.  The mechanic guy builds his Bedini motor, but he never makes a single measurement.  He has no clue if the charging efficiency of his build is 2%, 5% or 20%.  He just did a "paint by numbers" build and made a rotor spin and directed the coil discharge to a charging battery.  There has got to be more to it than that if you are trying to get something out of the experience.

Here is a little quote from Aaron:

Quote
Hector, yes, normally you cannot keep swapping batteries because they will go down. In my tests with my own machine with Harbor Freight 35ah deep cycles... On the first pass, I can recover about 90-95%... then swapping on second pass can get about 90%, 3rd pass about 85% or so then after that it goes down quicker since we're lower in the capacity of the battery by then.

With the indefinite battery swapping that John did, there were multiple batteries on the back and they were charged with high capacitance cap dumps that were a few volts above the battery every 1-2 seconds or so. That was without using any of the mechanical.

Do you see the sly old fox in the hen house looking to gobble up some chickens?   At least he admits that you can't swap batteries indefinitely.  But there is no way in hell that you can recover 90%-95%, that's a lie.  Don't believe me?  Go ahead and do some of your own tests.  Measure how much power goes into the charging battery and then develop some kind of regimen for measuring the actual energy that goes into the charging battery.  Don't even think about comparing battery voltages because that's 100% crap.  The poor Yahoo Bedini sheep base all of their measurements on battery voltages.

But the big joke about Aaron's posting is his claim that John Bedini has a free energy Bedini motor using capacitive discharges to charge the batteries.  That is absolute crap, 100% certain.  Only the Bedini sheep will gobble that up and believe it.  You can literally get your whole mind corrupted by the pseudoscience nonsense that is preached to the Bedini believers.   Choose reality instead:  Do proper setups, understand what the circuit is doing, make proper measurements, do a proper analysis and arrive at a conclusion.

Also note that there is ZERO mechanical output from a standard Bedini motor configuration.  Aaron has the Bedini sheep believing that there is an "untapped" or "unmeasured" mechanical output from a standard Bedini motor configuration and he is either stupid and/or ignorant or he is lying.  Aaron cannot understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball, so it would not be surprising if he could not understand what it really means when you talk about the mechanical output from a motor.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 01:40:19 AM
Scorch:

Final thought for you.

Quote
Is it possible that John Bedini does in fact try to teach us and he actually does 'let on' for those with open minds, eyes to see, and ears to hear?

Your biggest mistake would be to believe that I don't have an "open mind" or that "I can't see the special and unique things that are going on with a Bedini motor."

I am giving you the straight goods, the real deal.  When it comes to this subject matter, I can see everything, I assure you.   When corrupted experimenters say, "We are dealing with 'cold electricity' and your normal understanding of regular electricity doesn't count" it's laughable.  Same thing for the business about "the high rate of change of voltage in the 'radiant energy spike' is tapping into the vacuum and getting extra energy" is also laughable.  Don't let yourself get corrupted by this nonsense.  If you are going to 'study and learn from Bedini' then if you were smart you would also being learning about conventional electronics at the same time, the real thing.

I have watched clips of Bedini at conferences and have heard him go into his shtick and talk trash and sermonize to his gullible followers.  I almost wanted to die listening to the nonsense coming out of his mouth.  If you were smart, you would not fall into that trap.  Learning about real electronics at the same same time will give you the BS detector that you need.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 19, 2014, 01:53:11 AM
Yep. We have never seen a rotor power dissipation measurement from those folks and we probably never will. Even though it is relatively simple to do. One can calculate the rotational moment of inertia of the rotor with some simple math and reasonable assumptions (the rim at radius R masses such and such, the magnets at radius Rm mass such and so, etc etc until we finally arrive at the mass distribution of the entire rotor, then we can calculate the rotational MoI), and then we will know the energy stored in "flywheel effect" at any given angular velocity of the wheel. By doing unpowered timed rundowns from known RPM, we can then know the _average_ power dissipation of the rotor (the total stored energy is disspated in the total rundown time, so we can know the average dissipation in Watts over the test interval), and if we can actually graph the angular velocity vs time accurately second-by-second, say by using a chart recorder or the recorder function of a good DSO, we can even compute the _instantaneous_ power dissipation at any RPM (it is proportional to the slope of the rundown graph at any instant.) So when the rotor is powered and turning at a constant RPM, we can know this: since the RPM is constant, the input electrical power to the rotor is equal to the rotor's mechanical power dissipation at that RPM. This allows us to know, even without making any electrical measurements, just how much power is being supplied to the rotor at any given RPM within the range of our rundown testing.

Does Bedini teach this in any of his published work?
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 19, 2014, 01:58:58 AM
11/18/14

If a disinformation agent was attempting to mislead or redirect; how would those writings or rants appear in this context?

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 02:04:15 AM
11/18/14

If a disinformation agent was attempting to mislead us; how would his writings or rants appear in this context?

}:>

You have got to be kidding?  You are calling me a "disinformation agent?"

Tell me what you think I am trying to hide or mislead you from.   What secrets am I trying to prevent you from learning or discovering?
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 19, 2014, 02:20:26 AM
11/18/14

Is it a firm statement concerning a specific party and subject to a burden of proof or merely a question relevant to this topic and context?

In consideration that he who takes a position and/or makes a claim does suffer the burden of proof; why would I ever perform such a burdensome act?!?  8)

Knowledge is gained by asking questions and hands on experience.

Please forgive the appearance of my AsKing.

}:>

You have got to be kidding?  You are calling me a "disinformation agent?"

Tell me what you think I am trying to hide or mislead you from.   What secrets am I trying to prevent you from learning or discovering?
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 02:26:32 AM
Scorch:

Please don't go down the pseudo legalese route.  You are accusing me of being a "disinformation agent" and that is offensive to me.  So answer my questions in plain English please.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 19, 2014, 02:54:00 AM
11/18/14
Hey MileHigh.  :)

The answer to your question-
I see no evidence or record I have accused any party of any thing and I believe no such evidence or record exists.
Are there any objections backed by verifiable facts?

On the other hand-
Is there any evidence that I, or others, have in fact been accused and, if yes, is there any verifiable evidence to support the allegations?
Or are the allegations merely frivolous claims that only serve to mislead, redirect, cause damage or, otherwise, delay this experiment by writing stuff instead of doing stuff?

Interesting term; pseudo. As in: "pseudo-science".
Is this what they called Albert Einstein's theories before they were generally accepted by the scientific community?

Please forgive the appearance of my AsKing these questions in plain English.

}:>

Scorch:

Please don't go down the pseudo legalese route.  You are accusing me of being a "disinformation agent" and that is offensive to me.  So answer my questions in plain English please.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 19, 2014, 03:56:43 AM

Quote from Milehigher:

"He does not teach that an inductor is a current-based passive energy storage device which is functionally equivalent to a mechanical flywheel."


The inference is that John Bedini dosen't know that inductors store power.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 19, 2014, 04:30:51 AM
It's okay Scorch, you are just playing games but it doesn't really matter.  The challenges and examples I have given you are to try to make you think.  Some of the the statements were strong to emphasize the differences between the stuff you will get from Bedini devotees and people from the real world of electronics.  In the Bedini world, making a serious measurement of the output power of the motor into the charging battery is not even discussed.  That's an example of what is wrong with the Bedini crowd.

I think that you came here with an expectation that everyone would be in agreement with you.  So it may have come as a surprise to you to read some differing opinions.  And also you have gained a lot of insight and you know that if one has the education and skills and experience you can really do some serious analysis if you want to.  Or you can work on educating yourself and pushing yourself to do a more serious analysis.

Your Bedini world has had a well-deserved cage rattling.  If you are looking for disinformation agents, don't look at me, look towards Bedini and his cohorts.  For example, at a Bedini conference a few years ago they projected an animation of a Bedini 10-coiler swapping back and forth between two large battery banks in the basement of a house.  The "extra energy" was supposed to power inverters to power your house.  That animation was a complete and total lie, so think about that.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Madeo on November 19, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
During my experiments with Bedini motors and other pulse type projects,  I measured that BEMF spikes are only 50% of the initial energy that was used to energize the coil and that's with a fast diode at 75ns recovery time and a good mechanical switch. Bipolar transistors aren't the ideal switch like a mechanical switching system so more losses occur..   You can measure it yourself easily. Energize the coil and dump it to a capacitor.    Use the formulas for the Inductor (1/2 LI2) and capacitor (1/2 CV2)  to compare them.

If you study the circuitry in the whole system, there's nothing but losses all the way to the secondary battery.  The bedini systems does not have a wire grounded to the earth nor does it have an antenna to collect environmental energy so , basically,  it is a closed system. How can we expect this system to achieve >1.0 COP ???     

You can't and you won't.


 I suspect that even with the rotating mass (rotor), the energy in it won't be enough to break the 1.0 COP barrier.  This is why nobody in the whole world is able to replicate one that achieves OU with this device. At this point and time, it remains as a great way to revive dead batteries and maybe restore them to 100-110% of its original capacity.  If this is what he meant by OU simply because it can make the battery perform better than we first bought them, then I think this should have been emphasized in the first place.

However, there is one setup that I believe has the potential to break that barrier, but I'm too burnt out with this type of technology to try it.  I'm shelving this system for the time being and try something different.


Madeo :)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 20, 2014, 01:26:48 AM
Hey Milehigh.  :)

I see no evidence or record I have taken any firm position or made any specific claim which suffers the burden of proof or an expectation for an agreement and I believe no such evidence or record exists.
Have you assumed that a humble question is the same a firm statement, position, claim or expectation?

Please be advised I have little or no expectations because this is an educational EXPERIMENT.
And all I have to offer are a few progress reports and lots of discovery QUESTIONS to reveal truth.

Questions such as "Is there any verifiable *proof of his claim?"
*Proof such as: Replicate the experiment to see if it's successful within the perimeters of the claim.
Or, if one makes the claim "it doesn't work", then one still suffers the burden of proof of his claim such as: conducting the actual experiment multiple times, under a multitude of various conditions, in order to PROVE it doesn't work under ANY condition and must include certified documentation and supporting evidence. Otherwise it's merely a frivolous (unproven) claim.

I do not know what the results of this experiment may be and I conduct this experiment without any specific expectation beyond the expectation that it should actually run when I turn it on.
The rest is absolutely UNKNOWN and I would be an ignorant fool to make any specific claims about that which I have no knowledge such as a device I have not built, operated, or tested yet. . .

Kindest regards;

}:>


I think that you came here with an expectation that everyone would be in agreement with you. 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 20, 2014, 04:45:24 AM
I made precise measurements of Bedini's SSG charging power by lighting a 120 volt "Lights of America" LED off the charging circuit in place of the charging battery. I then accurately measured the bulb's luminosity with a high quality lux meter and compared the watts of light to the watts of input. The bulb was lit to about 70% of it's brightness and I estimated the recovery at about 30%. This was way below what Arron's talking about, but coupled with a "Lenz Propulsion" spiral output coil looped back to source, the input stabilized and source power even climbed slightly. The collected BEMF pushed the circuit overunity by approximately the amount I harvested through Bedini's charge circuit. No small feat, and all proper credit due to John. Everyone's seen my videos demonstrating this. COP 1.3!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 20, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
Scorch:

Quote
Or, if one makes the claim "it doesn't work", then one still suffers the burden of proof of his claim such as: conducting the actual experiment multiple times, under a multitude of various conditions, in order to PROVE it doesn't work under ANY condition and must include certified documentation and supporting evidence. Otherwise it's merely a frivolous (unproven) claim.

I do not know what the results of this experiment may be and I conduct this experiment without any specific expectation beyond the expectation that it should actually run when I turn it on.
The rest is absolutely UNKNOWN and I would be an ignorant fool to make any specific claims about that which I have no knowledge such as a device I have not built, operated, or tested yet. . .

I think that we have been down this road before.  I never stated "it doesn't work."  Nor are you qualifying what that means.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  What I have repeatedly stated is that your build will work like any other pulse motor will work.  It can be a $5000 pulse motor or a $30 pulse motor, they will both work in approximately the same way.

Relative to your statements, I absolutely do not have to prove that it doesn't work.  I am making no special claims and you are once again falling into the trap of reversing the burden of proof.  The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of anyone making extraordinary claims not on the person that states that that there are no extraordinary claims.  This process is never going to change so you are going to have to live with it.

When Aaron tries to claim that Bedini motors are under unity except for the case of a special "magic" configuration by John Bedini that uses a cap pulser to run indefinitely as an over unity free energy machine, 1) it's absolute crap, a lie, and 2) if Aaron and John want to prove it then the burden of proof rests with them.

As far as the results of your experiments with the motor go, I can tell you will 100% certainty that your pulse motor will act like a regular pulse motor and not show any behaviour out of the ordinary whatsoever.  That is a specific claim and I stand by it.  You would have to be an ignorant fool to have any kinds of expectations that something out of the ordinary will be observed with any pulse motor configuration.  You actually can make predictions about things that have not been built or tested when they are just applications of basic and simple electronics where everything is mundane and ordinary.

I hope that my point of view is now 100% clear to you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 20, 2014, 01:58:34 PM
Scorch:

I think that we have been down this road before.  I never stated "it doesn't work."  Nor are you qualifying what that means.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  What I have repeatedly stated is that your build will work like any other pulse motor will work.  It can be a $5000 pulse motor or a $30 pulse motor, they will both work in approximately the same way.

Relative to your statements, I absolutely do not have to prove that it doesn't work.  I am making no special claims and you are once again falling into the trap of reversing the burden of proof.  The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of anyone making extraordinary claims not on the person that states that that there are no extraordinary claims.  This process is never going to change so you are going to have to live with it.

When Aaron tries to claim that Bedini motors are under unity except for the case of a special "magic" configuration by John Bedini that uses a cap pulser to run indefinitely as an over unity free energy machine, 1) it's absolute crap, a lie, and 2) if Aaron and John want to prove it then the burden of proof rests with them.

As far as the results of your experiments with the motor go, I can tell you will 100% certainty that your pulse motor will act like a regular pulse motor and not show any behaviour out of the ordinary whatsoever.  That is a specific claim and I stand by it.  You would have to be an ignorant fool to have any kinds of expectations that something out of the ordinary will be observed with any pulse motor configuration.  You actually can make predictions about things that have not been built or tested when they are just applications of basic and simple electronics where everything is mundane and ordinary.

I hope that my point of view is now 100% clear to you.

MileHigh


@Milehigh,


Why not wait until the motor's built and tested before drawing final conclusions you pompous ass!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 20, 2014, 02:09:02 PM
Scorch:

We can characterize how a pulse motor works by just looking at a single pulse.  A single pulse contains a finite and measurable amount of electrical energy so we just have to look at where that energy goes:

1.  Resistive losses in the wire of the coil.
2.  Mechanical energy that gives the rotor a push to keep it spinning.
3.  The recovered back-EMF pulse that normally goes into the charging battery.

1. Resistive losses in the wire of the coil.

You can measure the resistance of the coil and the RMS current going through the coil, and the pulse frequency.  That gives you all the information that you require to calculate the number of Joules per pulse that turn into waste heat in the resistance of the wire of the coil.

2.  Mechanical energy that gives the rotor a push to keep it spinning.

As TK said, you can calculate or measure the moment of inertia of the rotor.  Then you can record ticks when doing a rotor spin-down test.  The deceleration of the rotor is proportional to the slope of the RPM vs. time for the rotor spin-down test.  With that information and the pulse frequency you can calculate the mechanical energy per pulse required to keep the rotor spinning at any RPM.

Note: All of the mechanical energy put into the rotor per pulse instantly becomes waste heat energy via the bearing and air friction.  This is where Aaron has a fundamental lack of understanding because he mistakenly believes this is "unmeasured useful output" that can be added to the COP calculation for the Bedini motor.  This is absolutely and utterly wrong.  It's also possible that Aaron is just faking and knowingly making a false statement because it's good for business to add a fake mystique to the Bedini motor.

3.  The recovered back-EMF pulse that normally goes into the charging battery.

Here you can emulate the charging battery with a big fat cap that sits at the charging battery voltage and a variable resistor to ground.  You measure the average charging battery power and with the pulse frequency you then know the amount of energy in each back-EMF pulse.  In order to make the measurement more accurate you also will add the measurement of the energy that is dissipated in the diode and the wire itself per pulse.

So, then you can check your measurements and see how well you did.  So to check your measurements, you make as accurate a measurement as you can of the average electrical power the pulse motor is consuming and then convert that into the average energy per pulse.

Here is what you check:

Battery energy per pulse = resistive losses per pulse + mechanical energy per pulse + charging energy per pulse.

You can do this for different RPMs.  You would expect to see that at higher RPMs the proportional mechanical energy per pulse will increase because of the increasing air friction.

If your goal is to make the motor as efficient as possible in terms of RPM per unit of input power, then you want to figure out a way to keep the proportional charging battery energy per pulse as low as possible.  In other words you want as much of your battery energy to become mechanical energy that drives the rotor while having as little energy as possible going in to the back-EMF spike.

If your goal is to maximize the charging energy per pulse then eliminate the pulse motor all together and then just pulse a coil, sometimes called a "solid state Bedini."

I think the most interesting observation would be to measure the trend where for higher RPM you get proportionally less back-EMF spike power.  Hence if you want to design a Bedini motor to charge batteries as efficiently as possible, the actual RPM of the running motor is not a relevant variable.  You want to put as little mechanical energy into the rotor as possible and as much proportional energy as you can into the back-EMF spike.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 20, 2014, 02:37:26 PM
Scorch:

Let's rearrange this equation:

Battery energy per pulse = resistive losses per pulse + mechanical energy per pulse + charging energy per pulse.

To:

Mechanical energy per pulse = battery energy per pulse - resistive losses per pulse - charging energy per pulse.

Note everything on the right side of the equation is easy to measure.  So you can easily derive and make a decent estimate of the mechanical energy per pulse.  So then a fun challenge would be to actually measure the mechanical energy per pulse with the spin-down test and then compare it with the calculated mechanical energy per pulse.  If the two values are say within +/-5% then it would give you confirmation that your measurements are good.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 20, 2014, 03:43:07 PM
@Milehigh,


Quote:


"All of the mechanical energy put into the rotor per pulse instantly becomes waste heat energy via the bearing and air friction".


Where does that leave an (evacuated)* frictionless levitating diametric neo magnet sphere spinner like mine? The asterisk denotes theoretical.


I can improve the BEMF recovery ratio higher then 30% by wrapping the power toroid coil conventionally; Tight with coil wires next to one another, rather then lash style. I realized the inferior lash design caused the Lenz delay with the output spiral, but the design does nothing to increase the efficiency of the power spiral compared to an ordinary Bedini style window coil.


Gadgetmall went OU with his piggyback output coil looped back to source SSG Bedini, although no one could understand why at the time. Placing the output coil six inches from the rotor at the end of a welding rod core caused the retardation in the output coil pole formation, and the consequent Lenz propulsion. I have noted at least five ways to accomplish this kind of "Lenz Delay Propulsion".


Milehigh's overly simplistic, pseudo scientific formulas are nothing but ivory tower egg head rubbish!


Here's my 100% certain formula: Lenz propulsion output coupled with BEMF recovery equals overunity!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 20, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
11/20/14

What if? . . .

What if I were to state that I do not intend to perform any extensive testing beyond this humble attempt to confirm that internal system voltage may rise while system is operating and possibly powering an LED light while maintaining or increasing voltage?

What if I were to state this is all I care about?

If there is ANY evidence this might be accomplished then; all you experts are certainly welcome to perform all this proposed testing to determine specific performance.
And, of course and if they need a machine to test, I would certainly be willing to rent my asset to them for the purposes of testing.  8)

While I, on the other hand, will then pursue bigger and better things while all you eggheads can do ALL the work to solve whatever problem(s) you might decide to have with the revealed evidence....  ;)

See how that might work?
If I were to make an actual claim of a specific performance then; everybody will certainly demand  that I perform all this work and prove it beyond my own believe system.
This would be a huge burden of proof thrust upon me by way of my own claim...
And if system actually is operating within the variable source energy fields and charging batteries that are subject to various conditions including temperature and even plate forming that occurs over time, and system performance changes merely depending on location, orientation, time of day, solar system cycles and other factors; how does one possibly quantify this and provide any specific performance results?

So why would I, Mike, John, Aaron, Peter (or anybody else for that matter) make any such claims subject to such demands and burdens?!?

It would appear that if anybody makes a specific claim then others, such as yourself, will certainly demand proof.
In this hypothetical, "what if?", scenerio; the proof would already be there for those with open minds to learn, ears to hear and eyes to see.
BUT they have to actually see, touch, and hear it in order to obtain the true knowledge they seek!

Otherwise; they lazily claim "you faked the video"...  :P
So. . . why would we want to subject ourselves to such attacks?!?

Would it be acceptable if I merely attempt to replicate what was presented in the video to the satisfaction of myself while also sharing my experience here for all to see?
Would it be acceptable if I merely allow others to find the proof they seek to support their own belief systems?

Want true, first hand, experiential knowledge and undeniable proof?
Then build and/or and test it yourself silly!   ;D

}:>


Scorch:
 So you can easily derive and make a decent estimate of the mechanical energy per pulse.  So then a fun challenge would be to actually measure the mechanical energy per pulse with the spin-down test and then compare it with the calculated mechanical energy per pulse.  If the two values are say within +/-5% then it would give you confirmation that your measurements are good.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 20, 2014, 09:00:08 PM
Scorch:

That was a generic example for any pulse motor, nobody is asking you to do the same tests.  Those were just some examples for illustrative purposes.  If I recall, in the clip Mike Kantz states that something interesting might be going on.  I think he switches out the power supply and runs the motor off of the big capacitor bank (the "internal system voltage") and at the same time the generator section is pumping power back into the main capacitor bank.  He is vague about everything, which is normal, and the main capacitor bank "might" be increasing in voltage when this is happening.

Woo!  Is there an anomaly going on there?

For starters, how vague can staring at the voltage readout on a digital multimeter for 10 minutes really be?  You would think that Mike Kantz would be capable of doing that and making a definitive statement, wouldn't you?

So it would be most welcome if you made goods tests here to clear up the cloud of vagueness associated with that Quanta Magnetics clip.  And no, you won't become an "egghead" if you do some good experimenting.

If you see the increasing voltage, the next things you should be asking yourself are why and how.  It looks to me like, for some reason, when he switches over to the cap voltage, there is some excess rotational energy in the rotor that drives the generator to charge the capacitor bank.  This might last a minute and then it will start going down.  For example, if the battery voltage was 12.6 volts and the cap bank voltage is 12.0 volts, when the switchover is done to the cap bank, the rotor will indeed recharge the cap bank for a short while like I described.  Obviously, the normal running RPM at 12.0 volts is going to be slower than the same thing at 12.6 volts.  The excess RPM in the rotor is "burned off" by charging the cap bank.  It's all 100% normal.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 20, 2014, 10:09:54 PM
11/20/14

Managed to complete some more assembly work today.
I used a cheapo arbor press to press the magnets into the intermediate rotors which do appear to be polycarbonate and are same diameter as primary motor rotor at 11".
Magnets are 18 pcs of 1.75" Dia x 0.25" Thick N42
www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DXC4 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DXC4)

The manufacturer calls these "secondary" rotors but I call them "intermediate" rotors because there is-
1. Primary motor rotor.
2. Intermediate rotors. (qty. 3)
3. Final alternator rotors. (qty. 2)

I also stacked all the moving parts onto a scale including all rotors, magnets, shaft, hubs, timing disk, flywheels and hardware in order to get an idea of what the total rotational mass might be.

The total kinetic mass in this device is right around 27 pounds.

And, yes, all these rotors do tend to 'couple' with each other.
Had to use lots of styrofoam spacers just to make sure they don't all lock together on the scale.

I also placed the motor and generator sections side by side for a size comparison.
It does appear the motor section is substantially larger than the alternator it will drive along with the flywheel.

That is all for now.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 20, 2014, 10:19:13 PM
11/20/14

No. I would not.

Why?
Because if he makes a definitive statement; somebody would then call him a liar and demand proof of his claim.  ::)

And, more than likely, he has much higher priorities to be concerned with than spending a lot of his time attempting to convince multitudes of internet skeptics, 'debunkers', or disinformation agents who have not actually studied the experiment in person in real time as I am currently doing...  8)

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

You would think that Mike Kantz would be capable of doing that and making a definitive statement, wouldn't you?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 20, 2014, 11:15:06 PM

Anyone who has watched those Mike Kantz videos should be able to identify the inventor in this 2008 video from the voice: Check out the capacitor and the alternator at the end of the rotor!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgkoxbS5rHk&feature=channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgkoxbS5rHk&feature=channel)


It's easy to see how he's coupled "Lenz Propulsion" with the diversion of back spike to coil pulse, satisfying my two requirements for overunity! Mike's self charger is the real McCoy folks, don't anyone doubt it!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2014, 02:12:11 AM
k
11/20/14

What if? . . .

What if I were to state that I do not intend to perform any extensive testing beyond this humble attempt to confirm that internal system voltage may rise while system is operating and possibly powering an LED light while maintaining or increasing voltage?

What if I were to state this is all I care about?

If there is ANY evidence this might be accomplished then; all you experts are certainly welcome to perform all this proposed testing to determine specific performance.
And, of course and if they need a machine to test, I would certainly be willing to rent my asset to them for the purposes of testing.  8)

While I, on the other hand, will then pursue bigger and better things while all you eggheads can do ALL the work to solve whatever problem(s) you might decide to have with the revealed evidence....  ;)

See how that might work?
If I were to make an actual claim of a specific performance then; everybody will certainly demand  that I perform all this work and prove it beyond my own believe system.
This would be a huge burden of proof thrust upon me by way of my own claim...
And if system actually is operating within the variable source energy fields and charging batteries that are subject to various conditions including temperature and even plate forming that occurs over time, and system performance changes merely depending on location, orientation, time of day, solar system cycles and other factors; how does one possibly quantify this and provide any specific performance results?

So why would I, Mike, John, Aaron, Peter (or anybody else for that matter) make any such claims subject to such demands and burdens?!?

It would appear that if anybody makes a specific claim then others, such as yourself, will certainly demand proof.
In this hypothetical, "what if?", scenerio; the proof would already be there for those with open minds to learn, ears to hear and eyes to see.
BUT they have to actually see, touch, and hear it in order to obtain the true knowledge they seek!

Otherwise; they lazily claim "you faked the video"...  :P
So. . . why would we want to subject ourselves to such attacks?!?

Would it be acceptable if I merely attempt to replicate what was presented in the video to the satisfaction of myself while also sharing my experience here for all to see?
Would it be acceptable if I merely allow others to find the proof they seek to support their own belief systems?

Want true, first hand, experiential knowledge and undeniable proof?
Then build and/or and test it yourself silly!   ;D

}:>
John, Arron, Peter have made many claims to self running free energy machines, but never once backed up said claims with hard evidence-nothing out of the ordinary there.
Be true to your self Scorch-search for the truth through testing.

Remember, John, Arron, Peter are all for making money, and the longer they hide the truth, the more money they make.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2014, 03:49:22 AM
Quote
What if I were to state that I do not intend to perform any extensive testing beyond this humble attempt to confirm that internal system voltage may rise while system is operating and possibly powering an LED light while maintaining or increasing voltage?

What if I were to state this is all I care about?

If that's all you care about you can do it for under 5 dollars, with no moving parts.

Skip ahead to 11:00 and watch from there, for a demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQi4jz2puio
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 21, 2014, 07:15:53 PM
Is this is a logical assumption these men are only motivated by greed?
Do we actually know what motivates these other individual men such as that beyond mere greed?
Are they actually receiving substantial income from this or do most of them still maintain a 'day job'?

If there is so much money to be made in this field of providing educational materials and experimental kits for a specific consideration-compensation; then why aren't there a lot more than just few men doing this?

If a man wants to be 'in it for the money'; is this a logical choice for a man to choose such a controversial field in which 'proof positive' is not always forthcoming and history has proven that those who try are always subject to a LOT of personal ridicule, attacks, legal challenges and even death?
And if one does, in fact, provide hard evidence the second law needs a serious revision, does mainstream science and other factors such as the energy and banking cabals merely roll over, play dead, follow their lead and immediately revise the second law?  Which ALREADY faces something like 12 known challenges and, yet, remains unrevised despite revisions to many other laws.......

Do good teachers, such as a college professor, merely provide hard evidence to 'back his claim' or does he actually encourage and challenge his students to construct and perform the experiments for themselves so they may gain their own experiential KNOWLEDGE?
Has anybody ever bothered to replicate the original single battery "school girl" device that won the science fair?
(I suspect they have but haven't seen one. So I will probably have to build it myself based on the new information I just received.)

I see no evidence or record that John, Arron or Peter are perpetrating a "hide the truth" fraud or they are in this ONLY for the receiving of compensation for their time, services, or goods or that anybody expecting or receiving compensation for their time, services, or goods is actually a 'bad thing' and I believe no such evidence or record exists.  :)

Is there anything to "remember" beyond these mere assumptions, presumptions, or opinions regarding what might be the motives of other men?

In consideration of ALL the ridicule and personal attacks already revealed here in these OU forums; would it be logical for me to make any "earth shattering" claims about the specific performance of this experiment?

Does this serve as even more evidence to WHY these and many other men (such as Ed Leedskalnin) may be VERY reluctant to reveal their truth in this context of said ridicule, personal attacks, highly competitive attitudes and seriously destructive wars?

Kindest regards;

}:>

John, Arron, Peter have made many claims to self running free energy machines, but never once backed up said claims with hard evidence-nothing out of the ordinary there.
Be true to your self Scorch-search for the truth through testing.

Remember, John, Arron, Peter are all for making money, and the longer they hide the truth, the more money they make.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 21, 2014, 07:53:28 PM

Thank you for the information, I have watched the video in it's entirety and is very interesting, but appears to be out of context. Or, otherwise, not quite what I might care about in terms of usefulness and the fact this experiment is not even in the same class, requires a powered transmitter, and appears to only be a demonstration of the wireless transmission of energy that is NOT demonstrating how much potential is consumed by transmitter versus how much potential back out from the receiver or anything beyond typical characteristics of electrolytic recovery which is similar to that of a battery electrolyte that also recovers some voltage after load removed. Nothing new here. . . .  :P

Please show me a joule thief that does not require a powered transmitter and is charging my 12 volt car battery... then I might care about that!  :D

For clarification regarding said hypothetical "what if" scenario; this scenario is in regards to a system that appears to be operating in an electrical-mechanical resonance providing well over 13 volts to power a bank of sixty LEDs or charge a common 12 volt battery or a bank of nine 350 farad ultra capacitors.

The video of the $5 experiment, producing 1-2 volts, does not appear to be anywhere near the useful 13+ volt lighting-charging output I might care about and is not an electro-mechanical system also providing a rotational 'shaft output'.

Please forgive me; but I do love mechanical, spinning, devices operating within, or even in conjunction with, this solar system and my Mother earth.  :)
But, of course, if there is a solid state device producing more useful output, such as a 'giant' joule thief that doesn't require a transmitter, then I might care about that as well.  ;)

Kindest regards;

}:>

If that's all you care about you can do it for under 5 dollars, with no moving parts.

Skip ahead to 11:00 and watch from there, for a demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQi4jz2puio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQi4jz2puio)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 21, 2014, 09:55:47 PM
Tinsel(Mythbuster)Koala apparently found the hamster in Mike Kantz's motor alternator!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 22, 2014, 01:32:34 AM
Hello everybody.  :)

Completed some more G1 assembly work today.

Pretty straightforward although a little challenging.
I did discover that the through bolts for the primary rotor hubs didn't have quite enough threads for some reason so that the bolts were bottoming out on their threads instead of the washers and hub.
Don't know why and haven't run into this issue on the previous Q3 build which, presumably, is the same rotor, bolts, washers and hubs.
Possible that hubs are slightly thinner or bolts just have a longer shoulder than previously supplied bolts.

Solution is simply to add more washers or dye cut a few more threads in the bolts.
Decided not to bother with cutting more threads, didn't have any stainless steel washers in this size, and I merely used some nylon washers from inventory.

The challenge is that it all has to be assembled as a complete, layered, unit with end bracket, rotor, stator, another rotor, another stator then another rotor and all bolted together as a single unit while still making sure shaft is still free enough (for final adjustments) within four disks and two hubs with eight spacers in two different locations and eight hub bolts doing two different things.....  :P

That is all for now.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 22, 2014, 01:34:47 AM
Well, at least, that would still be an alternative energy system because hamsters are solar powered.  ;)

Tinsel(Mythbuster)Koala apparently found the hamster in Mike Kantz's motor alternator!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 22, 2014, 01:53:12 AM
Thank you for the information, I have watched the video in it's entirety and is very interesting, but appears to be out of context. Or, otherwise, not quite what I might care about in terms of usefulness and the fact this experiment is not even in the same class, requires a powered transmitter, and appears to only be a demonstration of the wireless transmission of energy that is NOT demonstrating how much potential is consumed by transmitter versus how much potential back out from the receiver or anything beyond typical characteristics of electrolytic recovery which is similar to that of a battery electrolyte that also recovers some voltage after load removed. Nothing new here. . . .  :P

Please show me a joule thief that does not require a powered transmitter and is charging my 12 volt car battery... then I might care about that!  :D

For clarification regarding said hypothetical "what if" scenario; this scenario is in regards to a system that appears to be operating in an electrical-mechanical resonance providing well over 13 volts to power a bank of sixty LEDs or charge a common 12 volt battery or a bank of nine 350 farad ultra capacitors.

The video of the $5 experiment, producing 1-2 volts, does not appear to be anywhere near the useful 13+ volt lighting-charging output I might care about and is not an electro-mechanical system also providing a rotational 'shaft output'.

Please forgive me; but I do love mechanical, spinning, devices operating within, or even in conjunction with, this solar system and my Mother earth.  :)
But, of course, if there is a solid state device producing more useful output, such as a 'giant' joule thief that doesn't require a transmitter, then I might care about that as well.  ;)

Kindest regards;

}:>

Ah, so that is not all you care about after all. I thought not. But did you not notice that the wireless transmitter was turned OFF early in the video, remained OFF for the rest of the video and was OFF during the voltage rise demonstration? The initial power could have come from, say... a battery directly wired to the apparatus, just like your Quanta system will have when it's running.  But never mind that; nobody need be impressed by a big capacitor regaining some voltage while it's running a small load.  And if you want to light 60 LEDs and/or charge a battery, why did you say, or rather ask "if" "possibly lighting an LED" was all you cared about? But certainly I or any other JT builder here (except maybe LTseung) can light 60 or even 100 LEDs or more, brilliantly, from very low voltage inputs. I use a 24-LED bank, lit by one depleted AAA battery, regularly as a flashlight around the house and in my observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks)

But you want a spinny thing. I can respect that, of course, spinny things are cool and it is true that the Quanta kit is nicely arranged and you can be proud of it when you are finished. But you will get better performance as a battery charger or LED-lighter-upper, I guarantee it, if you don't waste your input power rotating a rotor. Everything that the spinny thing can do as far as battery charging or lighting lights can be done better, and more efficiently, and for lower cost, with a solid-state system with no moving parts. The only real justification for wanting a spinny thing is... that you want a spinny thing.
 ;)

I like spinny things myself and have built many of them. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c)

ETA: I must say that I'm a little surprised that the Quanta kit has parts that don't fit properly. That seems rather incongruous considering the nice look and finish of the CNC-tooled big parts. You should complain to your supplier.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 22, 2014, 02:27:48 AM
Scorch:

From the picture it looks like the wire pairs from the far pick-up coils are not twisted.  It's a minor thing but if they were twisted it would reduce any pick-up of EMF that is extraneous to the the main signal from the pick-up coil itself.  Just like networking cable.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 22, 2014, 04:44:39 AM
Please forgive my failure to discover any indication of how long the transmitter had to be on to charge the system or how much power was used.
Thank you for the additional videos. Some very interesting stuff there.  :)
Appears you are into some pretty complicated systems.

I hope to do more with less as in; "keep it simple".
And, BTW, unlikely anybody actually knows what I think or care about.  8)

Why the surprise? Parts is parts is parts and, after all, it IS a prototype, experimental, kit.   ;D

Haven't you ever had that experience with parts discrepancies?
Such as the same manufacture sending the same part under the same specification but not being quite the same such as slightly different color, new assembly process, different plastic, a couple less threads on the bolts, wood screws not stamped properly, brand name battery charger with specific part number actually completely different design depending on which vender manufactured it, and etcetera.

These experimental things have to be fitted.

For example the machined holes in the disks might be a very close tolerance and very tight just BECAUSE there can be slight differences therefore better to be a slightly tight fit that can be sanded out versus risk of to loose and unusable disk that will cause vibration.

It has been my experience there have been many improvements with these kits since I built the original Q2.
This is a constructive, developmental, educational kit that continues to advance and evolve from where it initially started and likely the G1 will eventually be surpassed by something even better.

Complain? Why?!?  :o

To complain is to make conscious choice to have a problem with some thing.

Why would I, the solution seeker, decide to have a problem versus my proactive, positive attitude choice to NOT have a problem and merely implement a solution per my technical and electronic training and experience duty to replicate the experiment regardless of these minor fitment challenges.

The manufacturer is well aware of this thread and does make quality control checks and balances as needed.
This is how we learn, improve, and evolve. No reason to complain about it.  :)

Especially in the revealing light of quantum physics in which the experimenter, himself, is part of the experiment and any initial choice or decision to have a problem or the system "won't work" will surely have an effect on the outcome of the experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29)
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/)

Kindest regards;

}:>

Ah, so that is not all you care about after all. I thought not. But did you not notice that the wireless transmitter was turned OFF early in the video, remained OFF for the rest of the video and was OFF during the voltage rise demonstration? The initial power could have come from, say... a battery directly wired to the apparatus, just like your Quanta system will have when it's running.  But never mind that; nobody need be impressed by a big capacitor regaining some voltage while it's running a small load.  And if you want to light 60 LEDs and/or charge a battery, why did you say, or rather ask "if" "possibly lighting an LED" was all you cared about? But certainly I or any other JT builder here (except maybe LTseung) can light 60 or even 100 LEDs or more, brilliantly, from very low voltage inputs. I use a 24-LED bank, lit by one depleted AAA battery, regularly as a flashlight around the house and in my observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks)

But you want a spinny thing. I can respect that, of course, spinny things are cool and it is true that the Quanta kit is nicely arranged and you can be proud of it when you are finished. But you will get better performance as a battery charger or LED-lighter-upper, I guarantee it, if you don't waste your input power rotating a rotor. Everything that the spinny thing can do as far as battery charging or lighting lights can be done better, and more efficiently, and for lower cost, with a solid-state system with no moving parts. The only real justification for wanting a spinny thing is... that you want a spinny thing.
 ;)

I like spinny things myself and have built many of them. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c)

ETA: I must say that I'm a little surprised that the Quanta kit has parts that don't fit properly. That seems rather incongruous considering the nice look and finish of the CNC-tooled big parts. You should complain to your supplier.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 22, 2014, 05:18:04 AM
None of the coil pairs are actually supposed to be twisted. If they appear twisted; it might just be the small, low resolution, photograph.
Or merely some twisting of the last two inches of all the pairs from each set just because that's how I tied them all together and soldered the final connections but do not know if this a good or a bad thing to have the last two inches of these leads twisted.  ???

The instructions do not indicate the pairs should be twisted at all and, in fact, includes a photograph of merely tying them all together as straight lengths of wire and only two conductors for all twelve coils to be connected and permanently crimped only after assembling the stators and rotors.

In the interest of merely replicating the original experiment; I intend to stick to the original blueprint as much as possible.
The only thing I did different, in this electrical aspect of the stators, was to tie them separately with two separate leads for each stator so they may actually be separated in the event the device has to be disassembled.

Not sure if I want to worry about EMF shielding... and if we desire to gather energy from the source field (including stray EMF), that we might be able to collect and use, do we want to actually shield the wiring?  ???

Is it possible that some people actually get better results of collecting 'energy from the vacuum' because their prototype wiring is a very sloppy pile of spaghetti everywhere?
I have no idea but do believe JB has reasons for using Litz wire for certain applications to collect more energy from the vacuum-ether-dark-source field or whatever they call it these days.

*shrugs*

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

From the picture it looks like the wire pairs from the far pick-up coils are not twisted.  It's a minor thing but if they were twisted it would reduce any pick-up of EMF that is extraneous to the the main signal from the pick-up coil itself.  Just like networking cable.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 22, 2014, 06:47:14 PM
Scorch:

You shouldn't buy into JB's line about "energy from the vacuum."  Same thing about "open systems vs. closed systems."  That's the real disinformation.  All that you really have is energy flowing out of the battery and wiggling it's way through the coils, capacitors, rotor, generator, and so on.  Most of the time it reaches a final destination of heat.  Nor do you have to worry about any MIB bogeymen like you have posted "warnings" about half a dozen times or so.

Quote
Is it possible that some people actually get better results of collecting 'energy from the vacuum' because their prototype wiring is a very sloppy pile of spaghetti everywhere?

I think that's called an "argument from ignorance."  It doesn't get you very far.  Just like Captain Zero stated that there may be a "magic box" inside the alleged GDS generator.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 22, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
Compare this magnet backed magnetite (Fe3O4) powder core GAP motor coil to Doug Konzen's magnet backed ferrite core output coil:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxrJoGZy1to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxrJoGZy1to)
 
He shorts one of these magnet backed coils in this video and gets the same rotor speed up Doug Konzen demonstrates:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UlwdLXO3AI&list=UU3v-1RhhS50L5H2_FYFFBqQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UlwdLXO3AI&list=UU3v-1RhhS50L5H2_FYFFBqQ)
 
@Milehigh,
 
You're the Bogeyman!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 23, 2014, 12:16:47 AM
uh-huh; whatever.  8)

I accept all your claims upon proof of your claims.  :)
Is there a verifiable proof of claim, beyond a mere opinion or disagreement, the "energy from the vacuum" educational DVD series (38 DVDs so far) is 'disinformation'?

With regards to nomenclature-
Please replace "energy from the vacuum" with whatever your preferred term may be such as: "source field" or "torsion field physics" or "dark energy" or "ether energy" or "magic" or "pyramid energy" or "flower of life" or "power of God" or "sacred geometry" or "Grand Unified Field" or "flux fields", gravitons, tachyons, etheron energy, God particles, solitons, quantum energy, the philosopher's stone, Dragon Power, gravity waves, dual currents, tree of life or whatever else they call it these days. . .  ???

Take your pick or create your own term for IT.   :D

Albert Einstein called it "Inertia Ether".
Nikola Tesla called it "Radiant Energy".
Tom Bearden calls it "Energy from the vacuum".
MileHigh calls it "disinformation"...

Doesn't matter! It's ALL the same stuff!!
The fabric of space... that which powers the universe, galaxies, solar systems, gravity, electron spin, thought processes, power creation and all life.  ;D

TED talk-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhBymLCRIU8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhBymLCRIU8)

Articles or web sites-
www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/tesla-vs-einstein-the-ether-the-birth-of-the-new-physics (http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/tesla-vs-einstein-the-ether-the-birth-of-the-new-physics)
www.coralcastlecode.com (http://www.coralcastlecode.com)
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-physics-mystery-solitons-vortex.html (http://phys.org/news/2014-02-physics-mystery-solitons-vortex.html)
http://crossingtheeventhorizon.webs.com (http://crossingtheeventhorizon.webs.com)
http://resonance.is (http://resonance.is)

Open source study forum-
http://vortexspace.org/ (http://vortexspace.org/)

Source field investigations-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-klTa1y54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-klTa1y54)
www.furaffinity.net/journal/6131859/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6131859/)

Experimental kits-
www.quantamagnetics.com (http://www.quantamagnetics.com)

Kindest regards;

}:>


Scorch:

You shouldn't buy into JB's line about "energy from the vacuum."  Same thing about "open systems vs. closed systems."  That's the real disinformation.  All that you really have is energy flowing out of the battery and wiggling it's way through the coils, capacitors, rotor, generator, and so on.  Most of the time it reaches a final destination of heat.  Nor do you have to worry about any MIB bogeymen like you have posted "warnings" about half a dozen times or so.

I think that's called an "argument from ignorance."  It doesn't get you very far.  Just like Captain Zero stated that there may be a "magic box" inside the alleged GDS generator.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2014, 01:03:20 AM
There is a big difference between a "TEDx" talk, like the "Free Energy" video above, and a true TED Talk. It is a misrepresentation to try to legitimize the content of the TEDx presentation as a "TED Talk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#TEDx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#TEDx)

You can find all kinds of nonsense in TEDx presentations. You are shooting yourself in the foot, twice, by posting that particular video of nonsense. It is not a "TED Talk" and it makes false claims for which there is no evidence.

Why don't you ask Marko Rodin, or any of the Rodin Coil claimants, where they get their electricity? I know where they get it and so do you. Not a single one of them has ever shown any real evidence of a single Joule of "free energy" or even any unusual electromagnetic phenomena from a "rodin coil". They are works of art, nothing more.

ETA: Let's review. If you think you have a new "theory" that is different from, say, Quantum Electrodynamics, then you have to be able to show several things.
1. Your new theory has to fully account for everything covered by the old theory -- AND --
2. It must make testable predictions NOT already made by the old theory -- AND --
3. Those predictions must be found to be true, by properly constructed experiments.

So go ahead and demonstrate how "vortex based mathematics"  does these things. Please.  Demonstrate something that a Rodin coil does that cannot be described fully by ordinary A-level electromagnetism. Present something that "vortex based math" predicts that is not predicted by standard physics/maths and then demonstrate that the prediction is accurate.  But of course you cannot.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 23, 2014, 01:57:54 AM
There is a big difference between a "TEDx" talk, like the "Free Energy" video above, and a true TED Talk. It is a misrepresentation to try to legitimize the content of the TEDx presentation as a "TED Talk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#TEDx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#TEDx)

You can find all kinds of nonsense in TEDx presentations. You are shooting yourself in the foot, twice, by posting that particular video of nonsense. It is not a "TED Talk" and it makes false claims for which there is no evidence.

Why don't you ask Marko Rodin, or any of the Rodin Coil claimants, where they get their electricity? I know where they get it and so do you. Not a single one of them has ever shown any real evidence of a single Joule of "free energy" or even any unusual electromagnetic phenomena from a "rodin coil". They are works of art, nothing more.

ETA: Let's review. If you think you have a new "theory" that is different from, say, Quantum Electrodynamics, then you have to be able to show several things.
1. Your new theory has to fully account for everything covered by the old theory -- AND --
2. It must make testable predictions NOT already made by the old theory -- AND --
3. Those predictions must be found to be true, by properly constructed experiments.

So go ahead and demonstrate how "vortex based mathematics"  does these things. Please.  Demonstrate something that a Rodin coil does that cannot be described fully by ordinary A-level electromagnetism. Present something that "vortex based math" predicts that is not predicted by standard physics/maths and then demonstrate that the prediction is accurate.  But of course you cannot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNqMfBj_F8&list=UUo4TZccCL4Y6reMBGJSl0NQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNqMfBj_F8&list=UUo4TZccCL4Y6reMBGJSl0NQ)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 23, 2014, 02:20:21 AM
TK:

Thanks for pointing out the difference between TEDx and TED, I was not aware.

Scorch:

Like TK said, show a milli-Joule of free energy coming from a "Rodin" coil before you start talking about "energy from the vacuum" or any variant thereof.  One more time you are trying to shift the burden of proof when you state, "I accept all your claims upon proof of your claims."  I don't have to prove a single damn thing, so get that in your head and start thinking clearly about this issue.  On the forums many times people have claimed that they can get excess energy from the vacuum by pulsing a coil and I ask them to do a simple experiment to prove it.  I have asked it about five times from various people making strong claims along these lines and never once got a response.

Quote
Albert Einstein called it "Inertia Ether".
Nikola Tesla called it "Radiant Energy".
Tom Bearden calls it "Energy from the vacuum".
MileHigh calls it "disinformation"...

I am not aware of the term "Inertia Ether" associated with Einstein.  Your little word play where you squeeze me into the mix falls flat.  Where is Tom Bearden's Motionless Energy Generator?   Wasn't in in something like 2002 or 2003 where he was supposed to go into production with this alleged free energy machine?  Until somebody offers up tangible proof that can be verified by multiple independent and technically competent third parties it's all just crap and disinformation to sell books and DVDs and downloads, just like the "Energy from the Vacuum" series.  It's all just word verbage heaped on impressionable people with free energy fantasies to fleece them of their money.  This applies to Quanta Magnetics and your pulse motor also.  There is no mystique and opportunity to discover something new with your basic beginners "Electronics 101" pulse motor.  If you took a dozen or so electronics and electronics related courses and did about 150 electronics laboratory experiments then perhaps your attitude would be different.

I watched that Randy Powell TEDx talk about a month ago and I was shocked to see that the "TED" organization gave that guy a platform.  His talk was ridiculous stating that a Rodin coil and the associated alleged "vortex math" could be used to solve just about all of our energy and social problems.  He was full of crap.  Somewhere I read that he promised to email the TEDx people with some follow-up information to back up his outrageous statements.  He was supposed to respond in email within 30 days but never did.  Surprise surprise.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 23, 2014, 02:26:51 AM
Here we go:

http://blog.ketyov.com/2012/10/ted-pulls-pseudoscience-talk.html (http://blog.ketyov.com/2012/10/ted-pulls-pseudoscience-talk.html)

TED pulls pseudoscience talk

A few months ago TEDxCharlotte released a video from its event of a guy named Randy Powell just talking a bunch of pseudoscientific-but-grand-sounding nonsense (http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/04/tedx-woo-tube.html) about "Vortex Mathematics".
 
 Carl Zimmer (https://twitter.com/carlzimmer) mentioned it in his evisceration of TED's weak science draw (http://www.downloadtheuniverse.com/dtu/2012/06/the-demise-of-guys-why-boys-are-struggling-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-by-philip-zimbardo-and-nikita-duncan-ted-books-ki.html) (specifically Philip Zimbardo's talk) which lead me to ask a question about the talk over on Quora.
 
 Specifically, I asked, "Is Randy Powell saying anything in his 2010 TEDxCharlotte talk or is it just total nonsense?" It got a lot of great answers (which is what I was hoping for) including the currently top-rated response from Jay Wacker (http://www.quora.com/Jay-Wacker), Stanford professor of theoretical physics:
 
 <blockquote> Wow. Such fucking bullshit. Well, I am theoretical physicist who uses (and teaches) the technical meaning of many of the jargon terms that he's throwing out. And he is simply doing a random word association with the terms. Basically, he's either insane a huckster going for fame or money doing a Sokal's hoax on TEDx I'd bet equal parts 1 & 2.

</blockquote>and this one from Joshua Engel (http://www.quora.com/Joshua-Engel) (one of my favorite Quora users):
 
 <blockquote> This is one of the reasons I'm not crazy about TED talks. The argument is gibberish; not a single point makes any sense. But without a transcript, it's tricky for me to make a point-by-point refutation. I have to stop, transcribe, then explain. It's a slow and tedious process. The question is, is anybody engaging in that kind of critique for the talks that aren't obviously deranged? Or is everybody just accepting what they hear and then letting the video move on to its next point? Video is a poor way to make an argument. It's a good teaching tool, since it's very convincing when the subject is actually valid. But it's equally good at making an invalid argument with little opportunity for critical thought.

Well it would appear that TED has officially responded by removing Mr. Powell's talk from their TEDx YouTube channel. Specifically, TED editor Emily McManus (https://twitter.com/emilymcmc) left this response (http://www.quora.com/TEDx/Is-Randy-Powell-saying-anything-in-his-2010-TEDxCharlotte-talk-or-is-it-just-total-nonsense/answer/Emily-McManus) on my Quora question:
 
 <blockquote> Randy Powell's talk onstage at TEDxCharlotte 2010 came under criticism for its lack of scientific validity. Criticism came from mathematicians and science writers as well as threads on specialist science and math blogs and other online communities. Members of the TED and TEDx teams watched the talk, sought further advice from experts, and ultimately agreed that the criticisms had merit and were serious enough to warrant removal of the talk from the TEDx official YouTube channel, in compliance with our policy.
 
Randy Powell was given several opportunities to directly defend his work, but did not do so. In a phone conversation with members of the TED and TEDx teams on September 12, 2012, Powell stated that his brief onstage talk at TEDxCharlotte did not include complete data on his work. He could not point us to that data online during the call, but agreed during the call to email TED his data, including a detailed 10-page paper, for a further independent review by a mathematician and possible replication of his experiments by a physicist. Neither the paper nor any other data was ever received. We consider the matter closed.

 In response to this incident, TEDx has clarified its policies on the scientific validity of talks and is working with independent TEDx organizers to help them access more and better resources for vetting speakers.</blockquote> Personally I don't think that removing the content to scrub its record is the best way to go but it's interesting to see that TED is at least taking some steps to clean up its scientific appearance.
</blockquote>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 23, 2014, 03:11:05 AM
Just some comments to deal with some cliches that Scorch mentioned.  Scorch is just one of many people around here that state things like this.

Quote
The fabric of space... that which powers the universe, galaxies, solar systems, gravity, electron spin, thought processes, power creation and all life.

Galaxies, solar systems, and orbiting electrons are not powered by anything.  They require no power to keep moving.  This is an annoying bugaboo for me that people often state.  It comes from ignorance, or a lack of education, or from blind repetition, or from a form of superstition, or from a failure of the imagination.

Anybody that believes this kind of nonsense should do their own investigations and learning to figure this out for themselves.  Take the solar system as an example.  Prove to yourselves that the solar system is not in any way whatsoever being "powered" by something.  If you can't figure out the truth here for yourself, then you have a problem if you want to discuss energy and related matters.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 23, 2014, 03:29:41 AM
Synchro1:

Quote
@Milehigh,
 
You're the Bogeyman!

You're a dirty little synchronously looping über tempest!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2014, 05:22:19 AM

(another video making false claims and showing improper measurements)

Nuñez is a shameless self-promoter who is trying to make money selling his products through the use of false claims.

Note that the audio amplifier is _part of the system_ and so the mains input power to the amplifier really should be considered as part of the INPUT power.

Furthermore, Synchro... do you not know what a large degree of Reactive Power looks like on an oscilloscope? Current and voltage out of phase, hence producing "VARs" which cannot be used to power anything? It looks like the screenshot below. If you are impressed with a high degree of VARs, a little bit of wireless power transmission and so forth you need to look at my videos on those topics again, because there is nothing new, not covered by conventional electrodynamics or which support his claims of "overunity" in any of Nuñez's performances.You will never see a proper comparison done by this person, comparing a "rodin coil" with an ordinary coil of the same amount of wire.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 23, 2014, 07:42:02 AM
Nuñez is a shameless self-promoter who is trying to make money selling his products through the use of false claims.

Note that the audio amplifier is _part of the system_ and so the mains input power to the amplifier really should be considered as part of the INPUT power.

Furthermore, Synchro... do you not know what a large degree of Reactive Power looks like on an oscilloscope? Current and voltage out of phase, hence producing "VARs" which cannot be used to power anything? It looks like the screenshot below. If you are impressed with a high degree of VARs, a little bit of wireless power transmission and so forth you need to look at my videos on those topics again, because there is nothing new, not covered by conventional electrodynamics or which support his claims of "overunity" in any of Nuñez's performances.You will never see a proper comparison done by this person, comparing a "rodin coil" with an ordinary coil of the same amount of wire.
TK-This cant be faulse cliam's,and the device must work as claimed-->it has LED's :D
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on November 23, 2014, 06:48:42 PM
Hello everybody.

I regret to inform you that there appears a preponderance of evidence this forum is no longer the supportive place it used to be for the sharing these new ideas or an experiment such as this.
Including the obvious ongoing, continuous, stream of negativity distractions, arguments, and controversies that are becoming very seriously distracting, time consuming or, otherwise, totally detrimental to these explorations and this creative process to the point of actually being damaging not only to this experiment and these assets but also damaging to many other good people as well.  :(

My experience with this forum and this thread has been entirely negative and totally OPPOSITE of my previous experiences with the other OU thread I participated in years ago where the commenters where always very supportive.

Oh well. Your loss I guess. *shrugs*  8)

If anybody here actually believes in such things as this creative process, these positive explorations of these new sciences, and practical applications of these verifiable physics and math; feel free to continue viewing the progress of this experiment in my FA gallery found here-
www.furaffinity.net/user/scorch/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/gallery/scorch/)

All links or references to this forum, that were originally in my FA gallery, have now been removed due to all the negativity, controversy, frivolous claims, spam, personal, "school yard bully", behavior and attacks against other inventors and researchers (including those who advertise here), commercial damages or, otherwise, a total failure to provide any substantive, positive, support for the replication and testing of 1 (one) experiment.

I'm out of here.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2014, 07:14:23 PM
TK-This cant be faulse cliam's,and the device must work as claimed-->it has LED's :D

Of course it does. That should be proof enough for anyone, right?

Let's review: The Rodin coil video shows a pretty coil device fed by a mains-powered audio amplifier. The power used to run the amplifier is conveniently not measured by the claimant. A single LED is lit a few inches away by field pickup, using another many-turn copper wire coil. The "output" of the Rodin coil is measured to show a few Watts of VARs, non-usable power, which is confirmed on the scope screen to be VARs, very close to 90 degrees phase shift, with some distortion caused by tapping a little bit of real power off to light up -- rather dimly -- the big bank of LEDs.
Right?

Now watch this, one of my microQEG demonstrations, and then tell me again how much "OU" that the Rodin coil makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXrhRqlQE4

Note that I don't hide most of the true input power by failing to measure the _audio amplifier_ input power as Nunez does. I don't even have an audio amplifier! I'm drawing less than 2.5 Watts of _straight DC_ in total, not oscillating at high audio frequencies, so there is no doubt about my input power, and the scope shows very clearly some output figures.  And then I power a real load, a DC motor plus an incandescent light bulb, with the output through close _wireless_ coupling while also powering the 3 LEDs at a greater distance with the tuned receptor. Once again, we have a situation where making measurements on MY system in the same way that this "OU" claimant does on HIS system, yields much more "OU" than he has pretended to show. And I think that a little intelligent tuning and driving would even help his system work better, for certain values of "better". 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 23, 2014, 07:19:50 PM
Hello everybody.

I regret to inform you that there appears a preponderance of evidence this forum is no longer the supportive place it used to be for the sharing these new ideas or an experiment such as this.
Including the obvious ongoing, continuous, stream of negativity distractions, arguments, and controversies that are becoming very seriously distracting, time consuming or, otherwise, totally detrimental to these explorations and this creative process to the point of actually being damaging not only to this experiment and these assets but also damaging to many other good people as well.  :(

My experience with this forum and this thread has been entirely negative and totally OPPOSITE of my previous experiences with the other OU thread I participated in years ago where the commenters where always very supportive.

Oh well. Your loss I guess. *shrugs*  8)

If anybody here actually believes in such things as this creative process, these positive explorations of these new sciences, and practical applications of these verifiable physics and math; feel free to continue viewing the progress of this experiment in my FA gallery found here-
www.furaffinity.net/user/scorch/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/gallery/scorch/)

All links or references to this forum, that were originally in my FA gallery, have now been removed due to all the negativity, controversy, frivolous claims, spam, personal attacks against others, commercial damages or, otherwise, a total failure to provide any substantive, positive, support for the replication and testing of 1 (one) experiment.

I'm out of here.

Kindest regards;

}:>
Awww, he's taking his toys and going home. Aww.

Any _really serious_ experimenter would simply respond to the negativity with _proofs_ that the negative commenters are wrong, or at least try to have a serious discussion.  But of course if no such proofs can be made, or the experimenter can't actually discuss the points made by the commenters, maybe dropping out is the only way to save face.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 23, 2014, 08:03:27 PM
Well, free speech is a double-edged sword.  You can't shout out that there is a fire in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one, but you are free to say anything that you think about the movie with your friends afterwards over a coffee.  Likewise if somebody is outside the theater on the street trying to sell "magic elixir water" for $100 a fluid ounce, you might want to engage with them.  You might want to tell them that their water is medical quackery crap and that they shouldn't be selling that nonsense on the street in front of your neighbourhood theater.

Scorch, you put up some links that were pure pseudoscience.  You are not going to get support from that from myself and some others.  Have you been living in a "pseudoscience vacuum" and believing stuff like this without questioning it and without using your critical thinking skills?  That "Rodin coil" stuff has nothing to do with your motor anyway, but you raised the issue yourself.  You were engaged in a debate and like I mentioned to you before, "shockingly" sometimes people are not going to agree with you.  So you can choose to advance your off-topic argument, or simply run away.

It would be cool to see your build progress and see your motor running and see you test it.  But in your posting you complain about "negativity."  You have to earn support by doing good testing and good result reporting.  Instead you are whining about a debate that you yourself were engaged in.  You linked to a TEDx speech by a Rodin coil guy that was truly awful and courter-productive to anybody that would want to experiment with coils and pulse motors.  So are you looking to be cheered on and supported for that?  Sorry, that's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 23, 2014, 09:51:53 PM
@Feral Hogs,
 
You oppressive Swinehunts managed to do it again with your chronic cynicism, abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering. Now Scorch, another casualty along with Jim Boot and Conradelectro and countless others. You pigs crowded Scorch off this forum. You're a hideous malignancy. Shame on you!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 24, 2014, 02:12:17 AM
@Feral Hogs,
 
You oppressive Swinehunts managed to do it again with your chronic cynicism, abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering. Now Scorch, another casualty along with Jim Boot and Conradelectro and countless others. You pigs crowded Scorch off this forum. You're a hideous malignancy. Shame on you!

Like I said before, you're a synchronously looping über tempest.  I don't even know who Jim Boot is but I sure as hell know that Conradelectro likes me and despises you and you were an annoying nuisance to him.  He asked you repeatedly to stop making a fool of yourself and to stop disrupting his bifilar coil testing thread.  That's probably why he quit the thread, because of you, Synchro1.  It's all there in his thread.  So that makes you a bald-faced liar with your statement above.  Don't even try your "grudge" about me when it comes to Conradelectro too because that's more nonsense from you and another lie.  So go see a shrink and get some help.  Come back acting like an emotionally balanced 50-year-old man that understands how to conduct himself properly.  You have been disrupting this thread also.

It's too bad that Scorch chose to leave.  Among other things, he referenced that obvious fake Rodin coil guy that made a fool of himself at the TEDx talk and never backed his statements up.  It's just real life when you point out problems like that and ideally you face them like a man.  He is welcome to come back and do his tests if he wants to but if he links to stuff that is misleading or not reputable or counter-productive that may be discussed.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 24, 2014, 11:21:37 PM
@Milehigh,
 
Why do you keep insisting I'm 50 years old when you have no way of knowing my real age? You're the one that needs to have his head examined. You fed a full two pages of pure bunk into this thread about coil cancellation until Tinman called you on it, then you just brushed it off like it didn't matter. The same went for the bifilar tests. I pointed out repeatedly that the coil only exhibits it's special properties when pulsed . The coil self resonates because it includes a native capacitance as everyone well understands. The coil tests out no differently then any other coil when tested with D.C. current. You persisted in deceiving everyone the entire time with that kind of misunderstanding, and covered it up with objectionable personal insults. You are truly a deceitful and overbearing monstrosity. 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: ekimtoor1 on November 25, 2014, 03:59:39 PM
I would like to thank Milehigh, TinselKoala, Tinman and the other down to earth, no bull shit, show me the data folk.  In my ignorance, I almost bought a Mike Kantz device, which would have cost several thousand dollars and days, weeks, months of my time building it.  You all have helped me to understand that a lot of kit is not needed to test ideas and most often anything I can think of...well it's already there to see and done much better than I could ever do it.  So I get some knowledge and truth for free!  That's awesome!

Thank you and please keep up the good work.  I want to know the truth.  I am often unable to see it because I don't know much.  I am admittedly a sucker for a lot of this stuff.  You guys keep me looking in the right direction.

Sincerely
MikeR
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2014, 07:01:58 PM
Thanks for the support, MikeR. I encourage people to do their own experimentation, but it's never a good idea to throw good money after bad, as my mother used to say. If someone has the money to spend, fine, it's their money and their time to spend as they like. Their families might not agree....
If you want to build a spinny thing because you like building spinny things, fine, nobody will argue with that. But if you are building because you believe your spinny thing will do something unusual, but there are sound theoretical and practical reasons why it won't... then you should be prepared for critical debate. Nobody on a forum is going to actually be able to prevent anyone from doing what they want to do, but it's ridiculous to blame critics for one's own failures to accomplish some goal. And there are a few things, like the Quanta systems, for which the _seller_ makes claims that are clearly not true. If the builder is building on the basis of believing these false claims made by the promoter, there is something wrong. Gyroscopic inertia generator? The very name is cause for debate.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 25, 2014, 07:46:48 PM
Thanks for the support, MikeR. I encourage people to do their own experimentation, but it's never a good idea to throw good money after bad, as my mother used to say. If someone has the money to spend, fine, it's their money and their time to spend as they like. Their families might not agree....
If you want to build a spinny thing because you like building spinny things, fine, nobody will argue with that. But if you are building because you believe your spinny thing will do something unusual, but there are sound theoretical and practical reasons why it won't... then you should be prepared for critical debate. Nobody on a forum is going to actually be able to prevent anyone from doing what they want to do, but it's ridiculous to blame critics for one's own failures to accomplish some goal. And there are a few things, like the Quanta systems, for which the _seller_ makes claims that are clearly not true. If the builder is building on the basis of believing these false claims made by the promoter, there is something wrong. Gyroscopic inertia generator? The very name is cause for debate.

@Tinselkoala,

You're congratulating yourself for hassling Scorch off his own thread when he was treating us to an actual test build. You are an obnoxious obstructionist. Where's the harm in permitting Scorch from carrying forward with a constructive project that held the promise of producing actual results instead of precluding him from helping with hollow conjecture? How utterly insipid and crass!
 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: minnie on November 25, 2014, 08:33:49 PM



   synchro1,
                 just read and understand what the "pigs" are saying and you might learn something.
 They hate to see less wise people getting fleeced. These days there are tools available that
 allow a set-up to be analysed, on paper, without spending a fortune. Remember it's the core
 of stalwarts that keep this thing going,
                            John.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 25, 2014, 09:03:14 PM


   synchro1,
                 just read and understand what the "pigs" are saying and you might learn something.
 They hate to see less wise people getting fleeced. These days there are tools available that
 allow a set-up to be analysed, on paper, without spending a fortune. Remember it's the core
 of stalwarts that keep this thing going,
                            John.

@Minnie,

Your "Stalwarts" tell me my OU claims are false and I'm not selling anything. I'm willing to bet any amount of money I can reproduce my claimed results under strict laboratory test conditions. I don't doubt Mike Kantz can self charge for two hours with his generator. I don't need to buy one, I innovated a better one myself. My setup has only one moving part, a bearingless rotor magnet sphere and does not heat up and conk out like Mike's with 27 pounds of bearing supported magnet rotors. TK sent Scorch on a garbage run to save 15 bucks on a magnet pole detector. TK's a miserly and reclusive eccentric. Other people can afford store bought equipment.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: shylo on November 26, 2014, 12:46:07 AM
Hi sincro, Could you show us a pic of your shpere, I made a a spherical rotor , but mine had a shaft through the center with bearings at each end.
Less talk more action.
Thanks artv
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 26, 2014, 01:36:58 AM
Hi sincro, Could you show us a pic of your shpere, I made a a spherical rotor , but mine had a shaft through the center with bearings at each end.
Less talk more action.
Thanks artv

The smaller black "Lenz Propulsion" output spiral coil is doing half the work spinning the magnet sphere at around 50k rpm, and looped back to source raising voltage on the run battery. Meanwhile the charge battery is recovering BEMF from the power coil. I estimate the COP of this setup at 1.3 OU.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asTs_iuUbuM)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 26, 2014, 02:08:46 AM
MikeR:

You are welcome and thank you for your comments.

Synchro1:

The pot calling the kettle black:

Quote
abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering.

Stop your compulsive lying.  Stop making a complete and utter fool of yourself.  If you want to talk technical stuff, then open a book or surf the web and start learning something so that when you speak you can say something intelligent instead of mostly talking ridiculous nonsense.  Go see a psychiatrist and tell him that when you go online you assume the persona of an irrational fool in a technical forum when in reality you have almost no technical knowledge or capabilities whatsoever.  Tell your psychiatrist that you insult and badger people repeatedly.  Tell your psychiatrist that you make repeated statements about over unity systems that are not real, they only exist in your fantasies.  Tell your psychiatrist that you need help.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 26, 2014, 03:18:12 AM
MikeR:

You are welcome and thank you for your comments.

Synchro1:

The pot calling the kettle black:

Stop your compulsive lying.  Stop making a complete and utter fool of yourself.  If you want to talk technical stuff, then open a book or surf the web and start learning something so that when you speak you can say something intelligent instead of mostly talking ridiculous nonsense.  Go see a psychiatrist and tell him that when you go online you assume the persona of an irrational fool in a technical forum when in reality you have almost no technical knowledge or capabilities whatsoever.  Tell your psychiatrist that you insult and badger people repeatedly.  Tell your psychiatrist that you make repeated statements about over unity systems that are not real, they only exist in your fantasies.  Tell your psychiatrist that you need help.

MileHigh

Now your impersonating a doctor. More proof you're just a Quack!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 26, 2014, 06:53:24 AM
Ah what power I have! A miserly compulsive eccentric who cannot even afford store-bought equipment, but I have the power somehow to drive away wealthy kitbuilders from posting and sharing their results!  Showing someone how to make something for free from parts they probably have lying around anyway, rather than them spending fifteen or twentyfive dollars for the _same parts most likely_ in a plastic case, is a major sin around here, I guess.

Hey, people, if you don't like what I say or want to see what I demonstrate, all you have to do is put me on your Ignore list, and then you'll never have to be bothered by my posts again.

Just click on Profile>Account Settings>Modify Profile>Buddies/Ignore List and add me to your Ignore list there.

Or you can run away and blame me when your apparatus doesn't work as you think it will. Be sure to shout some insults as you go! Or... you can attempt to refute me with checkable and valid outside references and/or repeatable demonstrations of your own, either one, your choice.



Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 26, 2014, 07:05:34 AM
@Minnie,

Your "Stalwarts" tell me my OU claims are false and I'm not selling anything. I'm willing to bet any amount of money I can reproduce my claimed results under strict laboratory test conditions. I don't doubt Mike Kantz can self charge for two hours with his generator. I don't need to buy one, I innovated a better one myself. My setup has only one moving part, a bearingless rotor magnet sphere and does not heat up and conk out like Mike's with 27 pounds of bearing supported magnet rotors. TK sent Scorch on a garbage run to save 15 bucks on a magnet pole detector. TK's a miserly and reclusive eccentric. Other people can afford store bought equipment.

You are claiming "Overunity performance", which means what, to you? To me it means that your device produces more _energy_ out than in, over a reasonable testing period. We all know it does not and that you will try to weasel around the definition, calling something OU when it is really not, just like LTseung does, so you will need to specify, in writing beforehand, just what you mean by "OU" and whether or not it meets, say, the definition of Stefan's OU prize competition or the Puthoff One Watt challenge.

OK, I'll take that bet. How about a Jack-in-the-Box Jumbo Jack with Cheese, as the stake? Even I can afford to bet that much, miserly reclusive eccentric with garage sale equipment that I am.   You submit your claimed device for independent testing by, say, Chet (ramset) and his team, or EarthTech International, or Hathaway Consulting Services, or some other reputable tester and let the chips fall where they may.  Put a time limit on it, so we don't have to wait around too long. Let's say by 1 January 2015, you either prove by independent testing that you have an OU device, or you pay me one cheeseburger. 

Anyone else care to jump in on the wager? I imagine we could pump up the pot to some quite large value, to make it worth Synchro's time and effort... since Boeing and DoD and even Google are evidently ignoring him and his "overunity invention".
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 26, 2014, 08:03:55 PM
You are claiming "Overunity performance", which means what, to you? To me it means that your device produces more _energy_ out than in, over a reasonable testing period. We all know it does not and that you will try to weasel around the definition, calling something OU when it is really not, just like LTseung does, so you will need to specify, in writing beforehand, just what you mean by "OU" and whether or not it meets, say, the definition of Stefan's OU prize competition or the Puthoff One Watt challenge.

OK, I'll take that bet. How about a Jack-in-the-Box Jumbo Jack with Cheese, as the stake? Even I can afford to bet that much, miserly reclusive eccentric with garage sale equipment that I am.   You submit your claimed device for independent testing by, say, Chet (ramset) and his team, or EarthTech International, or Hathaway Consulting Services, or some other reputable tester and let the chips fall where they may.  Put a time limit on it, so we don't have to wait around too long. Let's say by 1 January 2015, you either prove by independent testing that you have an OU device, or you pay me one cheeseburger. 

Anyone else care to jump in on the wager? I imagine we could pump up the pot to some quite large value, to make it worth Synchro's time and effort... since Boeing and DoD and even Google are evidently ignoring him and his "overunity invention".

@Tinselkoala,
 
The hypersonic velocity of my neo spinner makes the "Twin Torus" setup unsafe in my opinion and I never pursued the approach as a consequence. My posts are currently moderated due to a sour exchange with Milehigh on Luc's "Mostly permanent magnet" thread. I uploaded a post to the current "Pulse motor buildoff " thread that should post soon. I discovered two coils that produced "Lenz Propulsion" and overunity. The magnet core variety delivers an even higher OU COP with a much lower and safer "Lenz Delay RPM Threshold". I want you to take a look at the three videos I posted on the other thread and consider the "GAP SYNCHRO"coil pulse motor generator as a collaborative entry from your Laboratory.
 
I could build this pulse motor easily enough, but I don't have the costly test equipment that would satisfy your measurement standards. My test of certainty involves simply looping to source and measuring a rise or drop in voltage. Not enough to convince inveterate skeptics like Milehigh.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 26, 2014, 10:50:31 PM
@Tinselkoala,

I'm currently happily un-moderated once again after several months of quarantine. I hope we can remain on a polite and gentlemanly standing in the future. Let me point out that a good deal of skill is required to start up and run the "Twin Toroid" Lenz propulsion Bedini circuit. Firstly; The neo sphere rotor requires a pre start and a tricky transfer to the PVC coupling. Secondly; The circuit includes a 100 Ohm relay coil innovated by Jonny Davro, wired to the power potentiometer. Engaging the 12 volt inductor is tricky too. The bearingless rotor begins to speed up as power's reduced over the "Lenz Delay" threshold RPM until the sphere is propelled entirely by the output coil looped back to source. The PVC encased magnet spinner needs to be slid gently and in a timely fashion from the core of the power spiral to the inside core of the output spiral in conjunction with the power shift.  Input to the larger pulse coil is completely shut off. This is where I pick up in the video. It requires skill to achieve this run method. The output coil has no counter current to fight in the circuit. The output coil drives the neo sphere rotor alone, and generates current at the same time. I doubt sending the coil and circuitry to a test laboratory would produce any results without me there to help get it up to speed in self running mode. Once again let me warn everyone that the "Hypersonic Spinner" would fragment into lethal projectiles if it dislodged and hit the floor at that speed like a hand grenade exploding!
 
The other point I want to make is that "Power from the vacuum" involves the quanta mechanics that re-strengthen magnets from the atomic level so the magnet power's replenished rather then depleted through use.   
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 01:57:01 AM
Synchro1:

Quote
My posts are currently moderated

So that's why your posts were appearing after the fact.  It didn't occur to me.

It's time for you to turn over a new leaf.  You have a chance for a fresh start.

Any more personal attacks from you and abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering will be totally unacceptable.  I am strongly advising you to not cross that line.  This does not only include me, you have done the same thing repeatedly to Tinsel Koala and you have probably taken some pot-shots at MarkE and others.

Here is an example of your handy-work that was all directed at me:

Quote
Now your impersonating a doctor. More proof you're just a Quack!
You are truly a deceitful and overbearing monstrosity.
Why not wait until the motor's built and tested before drawing final conclusions you pompous ass!
wicked people like Milehigh
What a QUACK!
Yet even more preposterous malarky from the supercilious fraud:
You are a supercilious and pompous ignoramus of the first degree!

Synchro1:  Will you stop this unacceptable behavior from this point onwards?

Please respond to the question.

You can disagree with me as much as you want.  Likewise, I can disagree with you as much as I want.  However, personal attacks and abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering will be totally unacceptable.

I can tell you right now, that there is no way that I am going to call you nasty names like "monstrosity" or "fraud" if we are involved in the same thread.  I will give you my honest opinion on technical matters without nasty name calling and personal attacks.  You are going to have to respond on the technical level without stooping low and resorting to personal attacks and abusive and insulting language and relentless and senseless badgering.  You are here to talk about technical stuff and that's what myself and the rest of the people on this forum are expecting from you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 27, 2014, 02:53:17 AM
@Synchro: Sorry, I just don't believe that anybody's posts are being moderated currently. Stefan generally announces such things publicly or by emails to the "guilty" party... do you have such an email notification from him that you can share?

It sounds like you are already backing away from your claim of overunity performance. Simply showing a voltage rise during running is not proof of anything, as any Bedini builder can tell you, once he's ruined a few batteries by pulse-charging them. Many people have seen my hybrid JT voltage rising while it's running an LED at ridiculously low voltage levels, and my Orbette charging up a C-cell while running on a AAA battery. Why don't you just make a video showing your phenomenon _in full_ and we'll see whether I can claim my cheeseburger or not. I'll let you off the hook for your unconsidered "any amount of money" bet, since it's clear that you don't really want to submit to the rigorous independent testing that a serious hundred-thousand-dollar bettor might require.

And here I thought I was a miserly eccentric working with garage sale equipment, too poor to even buy a magnetic polarity indicator ... so you can't afford to put together better kit that what I have available to me? No Clarke-Hess power analyzer, no 4-channel Tek DPSO or 1 GHz LeCroy lurking in your garage or attic? No stroboscopic means of telling that your spinner is _slowing down_ as your measured (how?) voltage rises during unpowered "self looping"? Awwww......   :'(
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 03:46:17 AM
@TK and Milehigh,

Where's Scorch?
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 03:57:52 AM
@TK and Milehigh,

Where's Scorch?

Trying to deflect isn't going to work.  Scorch chose to leave.  He linked to pseudoscience junk and after being told that he left.  That's life, but that was not a personal attack on him - junk is junk.  If you try to advance your proposition by linking to junk it instead can have the opposite effect.   Scorch can come back any time he wants.

I am waiting for your response to my posting.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 05:06:09 PM
@Milehigh,
 
You got a scalding response from my pioneering deep spin collaborator "Pirate Twin Beard" for cheaply ridiculing his output core acceleration experiments. You can't come up to "Twinbead's" sock tops. You insulted him off the Overunity forum too. I'm going to post a link to his videos because he details the starting procedures I used. Mike Kantz is not defrauding anyone as you inferred.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4WPuzoM-zA&list=PL3055C6B5402E135A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4WPuzoM-zA&list=PL3055C6B5402E135A)
 
Response to Milehigh:
 
twinbeard:
         
         "Yeah, watch the videos that came after that one.  My instrumentation got better as well as the device, and my understanding of the processes evolved.  You will find answers to your objections there, because frankly, I have heard all this crap before.  Quite a few very intelligent people well versed in the applicable physics have seen the device in person, and examined it.  Not one has questioned the frequency of operation, particularly after hearing the air ripping around the rotor, which, alas does not come through in the videos due to ambient noise, the fact that I like to play music while making videos to have a background soundtrack, and the lack of a studio quality mic.  Per friction... it atomizes some of the lubricant, but not all.  Eventually the lexan tube the rotor is housed in fails as a fine powder of lexan is produced over time.  This does not happen in all instances, as occasionally the rotor will essentially suspend inside the housing, causing only air friction. But none of that matters, really, because you opened the conversation by being an asshole.  Learn some manners, and perhaps you might learn something, if that is indeed why you are here.  Time will tell if you a genuine or just another paid shill... a common play from a tired playbook that I am WELL versed in applying countermeasures against".
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 07:13:33 PM
I am still waiting for your response to my posting.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 07:37:06 PM
@Synchro: Sorry, I just don't believe that anybody's posts are being moderated currently. Stefan generally announces such things publicly or by emails to the "guilty" party... do you have such an email notification from him that you can share?

It sounds like you are already backing away from your claim of overunity performance. Simply showing a voltage rise during running is not proof of anything, as any Bedini builder can tell you, once he's ruined a few batteries by pulse-charging them. Many people have seen my hybrid JT voltage rising while it's running an LED at ridiculously low voltage levels, and my Orbette charging up a C-cell while running on a AAA battery. Why don't you just make a video showing your phenomenon _in full_ and we'll see whether I can claim my cheeseburger or not. I'll let you off the hook for your unconsidered "any amount of money" bet, since it's clear that you don't really want to submit to the rigorous independent testing that a serious hundred-thousand-dollar bettor might require.

And here I thought I was a miserly eccentric working with garage sale equipment, too poor to even buy a magnetic polarity indicator ... so you can't afford to put together better kit that what I have available to me? No Clarke-Hess power analyzer, no 4-channel Tek DPSO or 1 GHz LeCroy lurking in your garage or attic? No stroboscopic means of telling that your spinner is _slowing down_ as your measured (how?) voltage rises during unpowered "self looping"? Awwww......   :'(

@Tinselkoala,

All you do is confuse people about what's taking place in my videos. I run the spinner up inside the core of the power spiral coil until I get "Lenz Propulsion" from the adjacent spiral output coil. Then I nudge the spinner inside the core of the output spiral and shut the power off to the pulse coil and it runs itself from the "Lenz Reversal". Got it? Go ahead and try to find someone to ante up money for the bet.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 07:57:18 PM
I am still waiting for your response to my posting.

@Milehigh,

Quote from Piratetwinbeard:
 
"you opened the conversation by being an asshole".
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 08:30:07 PM
Syncho1:

So you are just a coward, and refuse to acknowledge or account for your behaviour.  You had better stop the trash mouth right now or your mother is going to wash out your mouth with the nastiest bar of soap possible, Irish Spring.  Or, I will accumulate the next five personal attacks that you make on me and email them to Stefan and copy you.  That just might get you booted off of the forum permanently.

For your "million RPM" buddy, just ask him to hold a small separate sensor coil next to his "million RPM" little spinning magnet ball and clearly show a 16.666 KHz sine wave on his scope display.  That's a rotational period of 60 microseconds.  You actually have to prove that the ball is spinning at one million RPM.  Reality and showing your data is so tough sometimes, eh?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 10:39:38 PM
Syncho1:

So you are just a coward, and refuse to acknowledge or account for your behaviour.  You had better stop the trash mouth right now or your mother is going to wash out your mouth with the nastiest bar of soap possible, Irish Spring.  Or, I will accumulate the next five personal attacks that you make on me and email them to Stefan and copy you.  That just might get you booted off of the forum permanently.

For your "million RPM" buddy, just ask him to hold a small separate sensor coil next to his "million RPM" little spinning magnet ball and clearly show a 16.666 KHz sine wave on his scope display.  That's a rotational period of 60 microseconds.  You actually have to prove that the ball is spinning at one million RPM.  Reality and showing your data is so tough sometimes, eh?

MileHigh

@Milehigh,
 
You're just a lousy trash bird bub. You are the reason "Twinbeard" no longer contributes to the OU forum just like Scorch. You're stuck with me you two face hypocrite! You're the one who's gonna wind up permanently tossed off the forum big shot!
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 10:58:05 PM
You're a coward.

Quote
You are the reason "Twinbeard" no longer contributes to the OU forum

To quote Twinbeard, "As I expected.  Just another troll, which is why I left this forum.  Nothing to contribute but asshattery.  My time is $250/hr, but I do not think I will be selling it to you."

Does your brain process information properly?  Twinbeard used the past tense.  He left the forum for whatever reason that had nothing to do with me.   Can you actually think straight for a 10-minute stretch Synchro1?

You have to try to stop lying Synchro1.  You are just like Innovation Station, a.k.a. "IST."  Both of you sound perfectly normal in your YouTube clips, but you have these borderline-insane personas on the forums.  How many 50-year-old men have wet-dream fantasies about imaginary over unity circuits?  It's unbelievable the people that you see online.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 11:03:16 PM
@Milehigh,
Twinbeard accelerates his spinner inside his output coil with "Lenz Reversal" alone. Why don't you grow up.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 11:06:11 PM
@Milehigh,
Twinbeard accelerates his spinner inside his output coil with "Lenz Reversal" alone. Why don't you grow up.

Post a timing diagram that shows exactly what "Lenz Reversal" is and then explain in text what you are talking about step-by-step.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: synchro1 on November 27, 2014, 11:10:39 PM
Post a timing diagram that shows exactly what "Lenz Reversal" is and then explain in text what you are talking about step-by-step.
That's completely off topic. This thread is dead.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on November 27, 2014, 11:14:16 PM
You are just being a coward again because you know that you are finished the moment someone asks you to put some substance behind all of your fantasy bluster.  YOU started the topic about the spinner and the magic "Lenz Reversal." 
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: tinman on November 27, 2014, 11:53:59 PM
That's completely off topic. This thread is dead.
Nice bailout Sync ;)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: TinselKoala on November 28, 2014, 05:04:28 AM
You owe me a cheeseburger, Synchro. You have failed to provide any evidence or credible support for your claim of overunity from your spinner. Or should we wait until January 1 for you to admit your failure to provide evidence for your claim?

By the way... why does it slow down progressively and finally stop rotating after a few minutes? I know why, and so do you.
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on April 10, 2015, 03:17:43 AM
FYI- I'm still working with the G1 but have decided to go ahead and offer the Q3 up for auction if anybody here is interested in what is actually a very well built experimental platform (at a fraction of the retail price) now that I am done working with that experiment and I'm gaining more interest in HHO technologies that are continuing to improve over time.  :)

See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alternative-Energy-Experimental-System-Quanta-Magnetics-Q3-Charge-Accelerator-/151645123279 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alternative-Energy-Experimental-System-Quanta-Magnetics-Q3-Charge-Accelerator-/151645123279)

Kindest regards;
}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on April 10, 2015, 08:22:13 AM
FYI- I'm still working with the G1 but have decided to go ahead and offer the Q3 up for auction if anybody here is interested in what is actually a very well built experimental platform (at a fraction of the retail price) now that I am done working with that experiment and I'm gaining more interest in HHO technologies that are continuing to improve over time.  :)

See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alternative-Energy-Experimental-System-Quanta-Magnetics-Q3-Charge-Accelerator-/151645123279 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alternative-Energy-Experimental-System-Quanta-Magnetics-Q3-Charge-Accelerator-/151645123279)

Kindest regards;
}:>
HHO is very inefficient to produce and use. I haven't the figures, but you put in energy for HHO production where some is dissipated as heat - which is energy that does not produce HHO.
Further, HHO is used for example to run a combustion engine where the Carnot efficiency cannot exceed approx 70% under ideal conditions. Then you put a generator on the engineshaft, and loose another 10 - 15% efficiency. Then you use the AC from the generator, rectified, and charging a battery or capacitor - you loose another 5% or so.
Under ideal conditions you might reach an efficiency of approx 55-60% - in practice below 25-30% efficiency.


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on April 10, 2015, 04:55:31 PM
Gyroscopic inertia was used as an experiment for use as an energy reservoir in space. Don't remember exactly the details, but the inertia of the mass would release energy on the expense of angular velocity. Arrest me if I'm wrong :-)
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on April 12, 2015, 09:34:33 PM
4/12/15

There appears to be some things about HHO systems that are generally not known.
Including the presence of a 'secondary gas' and HHO reactors that can operate on resonance alone and without electricity beyond that to power a pump (which could be engine driven).
And other factors such as very specific reactor clearances of .5mm or less and plasma ignition systems and the energetic expansion of the secondary gas which is NOT a combustion process within the engine.
See:
http://www.globalbemvoices.com/videos/lectures/one-million-cavitating-water-electrolyzers/ (http://www.globalbemvoices.com/videos/lectures/one-million-cavitating-water-electrolyzers/)

One MUST bring most or all of these factors together in order to produce enough efficiency for a highly inefficient, conventional internal combustion engine driven generator to actually run the system well enough to produce enough water based fuel to keep the generator running in self contained mode.

Such as this prototype demonstrating a relatively simple (dry cell) HHO reactor that was used to power the generator in a self contained, mobile system powering the fuel reactor and a halogen flood light (until vibration caused halogen bulb to fail) then transported through an elevator and out into the parking lot while system continued to operate-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlciNOyo_U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlciNOyo_U)
The above system referenced in this video also included a custom, high powered plasma spark ignition system that is geared to the main shaft (on generator end) for proper ignition power and timing in the engine.

And other very interesting factors such as the appearance of 'structured water'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZrAnkUNmAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZrAnkUNmAI)

Or very high output at low power levels-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsPHvz_SAWA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsPHvz_SAWA)

I am JUST starting to study these things beginning with this compilation of links and other information including Dr. King's power point file on my social media forum here-
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6628277/ (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6628277/)

And I do plan to build stuff. . .

}:>

HHO is very inefficient to produce and use. I haven't the figures, but you put in energy for HHO production where some is dissipated as heat - which is energy that does not produce HHO.
Further, HHO is used for example to run a combustion engine where the Carnot efficiency cannot exceed approx 70% under ideal conditions. Then you put a generator on the engineshaft, and loose another 10 - 15% efficiency. Then you use the AC from the generator, rectified, and charging a battery or capacitor - you loose another 5% or so.
Under ideal conditions you might reach an efficiency of approx 55-60% - in practice below 25-30% efficiency.


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on April 14, 2015, 06:02:42 PM


And I do plan to build stuff. . .

}:>
Keep doing that. Nothing is more educating than building stuff and test stuff in real life :-)


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on April 16, 2015, 01:27:59 AM
Yes indeed. Nothing better than hands on experiential gaining of knowledge which is a priceless education compared to conventional 'classroom' or 'book' learning.
They say we all have TWO educations. That which is taught to us by others and that which we teach to ourselves.
And we do tend learn a lot MORE from our failures.  ;)

Kindest regards;
}:>


Keep doing that. Nothing is more educating than building stuff and test stuff in real life :-)


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on April 17, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
Hello all.  :)

Just an update on the Q3 auction which had to be ended then relisted due to an error in Ebay shipping options in which the Ebay web form did allow "Global Shipping Program" and "USPS" to be selected even though neither one of these options are actually compatible with a 110 pound package...

Here is the new listing-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151652018007

Kindest regards;
}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Low-Q on April 18, 2015, 09:20:47 AM
You should find a toroidal winding machine. These are noe very cheap, but saves lots of time and frustration.


Vidar
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on May 06, 2015, 03:32:16 AM
Hello all. :)

So... I built it. I tested it and just like many other things I've had over the years; I eventually lost interest in it as I continue to walk this path for discovery of even greater things.  8)

For those who might be interested in such cool looking things, here is your opportunity to grab it for a fraction of the cost and time it would require for you to buy and build it.
And would certainly make a very interesting conversation piece next to all the other parts, equipment and devices on the shelves of your lab or workshop.

And who knows? Might be a collector's item some day!  ;D

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quanta-Magnetics-G1-Gyro-Inetia-Genset-with-Regenerative-3-Phase-and-Upgrades-/151671636142? (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quanta-Magnetics-G1-Gyro-Inetia-Genset-with-Regenerative-3-Phase-and-Upgrades-/151671636142?)

Kindest regards;
}:>
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: MileHigh on May 06, 2015, 12:44:23 PM
Hi Scorch:

I also got your message on YouTube.  I wish you luck in your future pursuits and experimentation.

So the motor turned out to be a dud.  I hate to say I told you so but I did it in the spirit of being plain and honest with you.  Mike Kantz took down the lying clip once you challenged him on it, that says everything right there.   As you stated, you are just one of many burned customers.

I take it as a nod to my truth and honesty that Mike Kantz referred to me as "MilesThick" and had a little negative rant about the online forums.  Now we all know who the real person is that is FOS.

As a final thought, and perhaps with some 20-20 hindsight, you might want to take another look at this vapid zero-calorie clip from Mike Kantz entitled "Home Power Station."   Mike says something like, "My friends asked me how I actually use my unit at home."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyAK1Mv4R8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyAK1Mv4R8)

The problem is that Mike never actually powers anything with his "Home Power Station."  He just rattles off some useless information about his useless stuff mounted on two push-carts.  He never drives a load, doesn't even power a bloody transistor radio, he does nothing with it.  It's just a bunch of useless talk-over of a camera shot of his "products."

Anyway, time for you to move on.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on May 06, 2015, 04:26:24 PM
I never performed the extensive testing required to confirm whether or not it is, in fact a useless "dud".

Just know that as soon as it was revealed to me that a regulator was used that can result in the APPEARANCE of a self looped system that is not actually self looped; this revealed to me this device would NOT be suitable to demonstrate to others such as friends and family that it is capable of doing something extraordinary simply by carrying it in, setting it on the table and demonstrating it.

I also know that when I started asking Mike these specific questions about such things, he decided to become offended, pulled a couple videos, blamed me for pulling the videos and also changed his story regarding whether or not that particular video did use a regulated power supply.'

So, rather than continue any further testing; I simply lost interest in favor of other things that are becoming a lot more interesting to me such as what I can do with my engines, HHO, Plasma ignition and Tesla battery switching systems.

Another unfinished project in my shop is this diesel bike I was starting to build-
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13179439/

But, now I intend to sell that engine and build an electric bike as cheaply as possible using the Harley frame I already have.  ;D

http://denver.craigslist.org/for/5007071113.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u868V3iS_U

Kindest regards;

}:>

Hi Scorch:

I also got your message on YouTube.  I wish you luck in your future pursuits and experimentation.

So the motor turned out to be a dud.  I hate to say I told you so but I did it in the spirit of being plain and honest with you.  Mike Kantz took down the lying clip once you challenged him on it, that says everything right there.   As you stated, you are just one of many burned customers.

I take it as a nod to my truth and honesty that Mike Kantz referred to me as "MilesThick" and had a little negative rant about the online forums.  Now we all know who the real person is that is FOS.

As a final thought, and perhaps with some 20-20 hindsight, you might want to take another look at this vapid zero-calorie clip from Mike Kantz entitled "Home Power Station."   Mike says something like, "My friends asked me how I actually use my unit at home."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyAK1Mv4R8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyAK1Mv4R8)

The problem is that Mike never actually powers anything with his "Home Power Station."  He just rattles off some useless information about his useless stuff mounted on two push-carts.  He never drives a load, doesn't even power a bloody transistor radio, he does nothing with it.  It's just a bunch of useless talk-over of a camera shot of his "products."

Anyway, time for you to move on.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: Scorch on May 06, 2015, 10:52:36 PM
I appreciate an honest opinion but at that time; everything you told me was irrelevant because I had already purchased, received and started building the kit.  ;)

I merely came here to share this experimental endeavor and learning experience with others on this forum. Oh well. *shrugs*
Don't worry about it. Life is to short and all is forgiven.  8)

Kindest regards;

}:>

Hi Scorch:

 I hate to say I told you so but I did it in the spirit of being plain and honest with you. 

MileHigh
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: George F on December 18, 2017, 11:50:05 PM
I came across this website

http://quantamagnetics.com/

Ask a few questions through the contact page, none of which were answered, and then did a search on Mike Kantz and found this site.

First off, and I hope this doesn't turn off any potential responses, I'd like to put out a disclaimer that I'm absolutely not electrically inclined at all. I am interested, as I imagine most other people would be when faced with the question "would you like to power your home with little cost" in a solution that would help do just that.

So I guess in my ignorance, Ill just ask, what exactly do these quantum magnetic devices do, and what can they power?

is there anything else close to doing what these purport to do, or is this forum all just experimental? What's the closest we (those interested in these kinds of devices) have come?

Can someone ignornace and unknowing like me ever be able to replicate, or even purchase something that can be super efficient and run a home on little energy input?

Am I totally naive?

:)

Thanks,
George
Title: Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
Post by: geptole on May 20, 2018, 09:12:59 AM
http://www.gencodex.com/giroscopio/ (http://www.gencodex.com/giroscopio/)
(translated by google)

IDENTIFICATION CODES

1,2,3,4) flywheel
5 and 6) three-phase alternator
7,8,9) electric motor continuous voltage
10) thrust bearing
11) collector and support base for alternators
12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23) graphite brush
24) cover
25) ball bearing
26.27,28,29) bolt
30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42) tube of plastic that is electrical insulating
43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54) tube of copper that is electric conductor
55,56,57,58,59) imaginary axis of rotation
60,61) voltage elevator transformer
62,63) high voltage pylon
64) voltage reducer transformer
65) Graetz bridge rectifier
66) manual switch
67) starting accumulator
68,69) washer
70) resistor
71) relay contact delayed to 5 seconds excitation

------------------------------------------

By closing the switch 66, continuous electric voltage arrives at the graphite brush 19 and also to the motor 9, so the motor 9 starts to accelerate the base 11.
From the graphite brush 19 electrical voltage arrives to the copper tube 50 which connects the electrical voltage to the graphite brushes 20 and 22.
All brushes have a small spring whose purpose is to hold the brush against a copper tube, but for simplicity in the design the small springs have not been drawn.
When electric voltage is reached at the brush 20, the electric motor 7 starts to turn and then the flywheels 1 and 2 turn.
When electric voltage arrives at the brush 22, it happens that the motor 8 starts to turn and then the flywheels 3 and 4 turn.
All four flywheels 1 2 3 4 are of heavy solid steel.

Because of the gyroscopic effect, the imaginary rotary axes 55 and 56 have the tendency to maintain the same angle in the space around them, it follows that if the base 11 is rotating, the rotors of the alternators 5 and 6 are forced to turn. producing electricity which is sent to six copper tubes which are 43,44,45,46,47,48.

The three copper tubes 43,44,45 feed the voltage transformer 60, instead the three copper tubes 46,47,48 feed the voltage transformer 61.
The secondary circuit of the elevator transformers is connected to the high voltage cables, this is normal as in all power stations.
It is already known that any electric motor in continuous needs at least 2 wires, in one wire the electric current and the other is considered by convention the return of the current, the copper tube 49 collects the return electric current and then complete the electrical circuit.
Since the mass of the base 11 is noticeable with respect to the rated power of the microscopic motor 9, it is necessary to complicate the electric circuit so as to ensure that the starting electric current is limited; to do this there is the electric resistance limiter 70 and the delayed relay 71 normally open.
By closing the circuit by means of the switch 66, the delayed relay does not close immediately so the electric current is forced to pass through the electric resistance limiter, but after about 5 seconds, the delayed relay 71 short-circuits the electrical resistance 70 and then arrives on the motor 9 full tension.
By mistake there could be an obstacle that blocks the base 11 and therefore the motor 9 so unfortunately the relay gives the consent even when it should not, in this case an automatic thermal protection switch must intervene to avoid burning the motor winding 9.
Instead of the delayed relay, a revolution counter could be placed; the tachometer is safer but it also costs more, or instead of the delayed relay you could put a watt regulator that excludes the resistance only if the number of revolutions exceeds a certain predetermined value.
There are numerous methods to soften the start of an electric motor, but there is no willingness to explain them all.

The imaginary rotational axes 57 and 58 rotate in the opposite direction to the rotation axis 59, it has not importance which direction the motor 9 rotates, but if by looking at the top we decide that the motor 9 must rotate clockwise, the rotors of the two alternators will turn counterclockwise.

As a consequence both the alternator stators will suffer an anti-clockwise mechanical twist which will be released on the base 11.
It will be unloaded on the base 11 because the alternator stators are bolted onto the base 11 by means of the bolts 72,73,74,75.
It is very important to take into account the mechanical twists acting on the base 11 and the direction of rotation of those twists.
The resulting vector of both counterclockwise twists will result in a total central mechanical twist whose rotation center is precisely the rotation axis of the motor 9, so the motor 9 is privileged by those twists and there is no contrast as is normal to think .
The motor 9 is pushed by 67 and is also driven by the mechanical twists generated by the stators of the two alternators.
The two mechanical twists are in one sense and by reaction the whole base is accelerated in the opposite direction, this is the basis of the principle of classical physics according to which every action corresponds to an equal and opposite reaction.
The law of action and reaction favors the engine 9.
This means that after the start-up period, the engine 9 could also function as an electric generator.
The flywheels 1,2,3,4 must perform many rpm per minute, minimum 2800 rpm if it is possible to do 28 thousand rpm is better, without exaggerating too much otherwise the steel of the flywheels will deform due to centrifugal force.

instead the engine 9 can turn slowly, 60 rpm per minute are sufficient but even 30 rpm are sufficient.

The flywheels 1,2,3,4 are the most important components, all the other components are of secondary importance, if those 4 flywheels are still, even all the other things stop.
The 1,2,7 components represent the first gyroscope, and the 3,4,8 components represent the second gyroscope.