Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: World's first real Free Energy Flashlight - no shaking - no batteries! No Solar  (Read 186787 times)

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
I have yet to see an antenna without a cable. So the antenna that harvests the energy then re-emitts the energy wirelessly to the batteries, and each of them has its own antenna to receive the energy? I wonder why would anyone do that, when it would be sufficient having the main antenna connected to the battery directly (immense difference of cost, complexity, and efficiency).

I have nothing against carefully testing the flashlight and showing the hard evidence of its failure, but losing the last bit of critical thinking just to keep the hope is not necessary. If you search excuses, pull out at least something credible.

Skywatcher is right.  CCrane company makes an am antenna that is passive, you just set it near your radio and tune the antenna.  They work well.  I have a passive am antenna made by Grundig that I use and it works the same way.  It works very well too. No cables, no wires.

I am looking forward to seeing Skywatcher's results although I am convinced 99% that this is a scam.

Bill

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Skywatcher is right.  CCrane company makes an am antenna that is passive, you just set it near your radio and tune the antenna.  They work well.  I have a passive am antenna made by Grundig that I use and it works the same way.  It works very well too. No cables, no wires.
That's not an antenna, that's a reflector. You still have to have an antenna inside the radio.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
That's not an antenna, that's a reflector. You still have to have an antenna inside the radio.

I am pretty sure that what Bill is referring to is actually an LC resonator.  The clue is the tuning dial.  That connects to a variable capacitor and there is a big coil.  You put that next to your radio and get it to resonate at the carrier frequency of the radio station you are trying to tune in and voila, better reception.

I saw one once when I was a kid and never saw one after that.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
That's not an antenna, that's a reflector. You still have to have an antenna inside the radio.

True.

Bill

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
I am pretty sure that what Bill is referring to is actually an LC resonator.  The clue is the tuning dial.  That connects to a variable capacitor and there is a big coil.  You put that next to your radio and get it to resonate at the carrier frequency of the radio station you are trying to tune in and voila, better reception.

I saw one once when I was a kid and never saw one after that.

I just looked it up again and it is called a passive antenna, or a loop antenna but, you are correct that it has an air cap to tune with.  It really works very well but, TXT was right in that your radio needs an internal antenna already wired in.

Bill

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Okay, this guy is doing good tests with his ELFE and just posted a speedup timelaps video of it letting it run down
for a few hours until it is dead, but he also got a recharging effect...when he switched it off for some time...

So let´s see, what his future results will be:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBkoGW_U9-UvthQEURCgEBw/videos


Regards, Stefan.

Nink

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
Okay, this guy is doing good tests with his ELFE and just posted a speedup timelaps video of it letting it run down
for a few hours until it is dead, but he also got a recharging effect...when he switched it off for some time...

So let´s see, what his future results will be:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBkoGW_U9-UvthQEURCgEBw/videos


Regards, Stefan.

Great find thanks.  I love the Microwave Faraday cage approach for his testing.   Shame he did not have 2 flash lights.


markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Okay, this guy is doing good tests with his ELFE and just posted a speedup timelaps video of it letting it run down
for a few hours until it is dead, but he also got a recharging effect...when he switched it off for some time...

So let´s see, what his future results will be:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBkoGW_U9-UvthQEURCgEBw/videos


Regards, Stefan.
I did some tests yesterday and also got the recharging effect many times lol. I used 3aa NIMH batteries and on a separate test a 18650 lithium ion battery.
No magic here will video
Mark


txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
I am pretty sure that what Bill is referring to is actually an LC resonator.  The clue is the tuning dial.  That connects to a variable capacitor and there is a big coil.  You put that next to your radio and get it to resonate at the carrier frequency of the radio station you are trying to tune in and voila, better reception.
As you tell a resonator consists of a coil and a capacitor (and the wires to connect them), it cannot be a simple aluminium tube. There is no loop and no capacitor in the enclosed tube. And you still do need an antenna in the device. The enclosed aluminium tube is not a resonator, it is a shielding (its efficiency depends on the frequency, but it definitely does not help getting the signal inside).

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
When i put the luxmeter into the light beam at 1 m distance i get a reading of about 8500 Lux.
Skywatcher, could you measure the diameter of the light cone at this distance? Is there any background illumination in the room (variable or constant)?

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Skywatcher, could you measure the diameter of the light cone at this distance? Is there any background illumination in the room (variable or constant)?

At the moment it's not possible because i have already started my tests.
From my memory i would estimate it had about 10 cm diameter. It's quite narrow.

About my test setup:
I'm using this luxmeter: https://www.conrad.de/de/voltcraft-bl-10-l-lux-meter-beleuchtungsmessgeraet-helligkeitsmesser-0-40000-lx-kalibriert-nach-werksstandard-123206.html
I have attached it with tape directly on the front window of the ELFE, between the window and the meter i had to put 2 sheets of white plastic because otherwise the meter would be overloaded (> 40 kLux).
With the additional attenuation, i got an initial value of 26000 Lux, after some minutes it climbed up to 29000 Lux, i think this may be due to increasing temperature of the LED.
After 1 hour it's still 28700 Lux (resolution of the meter is 3.5 digits, so it's 100 Lux at these high light levels).
I'm taking readings every 10 min and i will post the results here on the forum after each testrun.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
1st testrun:

 
16.02.16
18:30:00
26000
18:40:00
28800
18:50:00
28700
19:00:00
29000
19:10:00
28900
19:20:00
28800
19:30:00
28700
19:40:00
28600
19:50:00
28200
20:00:00
27500
20:10:00
26200
20:20:00
24200
20:30:00
20000
20:40:00
11400

At 20:40 i switched it off because light intensity was falling rapidly.


txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
At 20:40 i switched it off because light intensity was falling rapidly.
That's was surprisingly short, assuming it was "charging" all the time since the assembly, during the shipping, till you made your setup and started to test.

Thanks for sharing!

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
That's was surprisingly short, assuming it was "charging" all the time since the assembly, during the shipping, till you made your setup and started to test.

Thanks for sharing!

I had it on for max. 10 min before testing... so we might add this time.

If we assume the initial power consumption to be 3W the total amount of energy would be 5...6 Wh, which i would say would be a realistic value for 3 pieces of average quality AA-sized accus.

The interesting thing now is: will it recharge ?  Normal accus don't recharge, at least not to their full initial capacity.

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
The interesting thing now is: will it recharge ?  Normal accus don't recharge, at least not to their full initial capacity.

If I take the promises of the "inventors" for granted, I have to say that you should not have switched it on longer than 3 hours. They guarantee only 3 hours of light for one day of self charging.

And then they maintain that you have to let it self charge for up to 14 days if you left it on for 12 hours straight.

One could claim, that a 4 hour run needs more than one day of self charging, because it exceeds the 3 hours recommended per day.

My point: the testers should first try several times the 3 hours of light per day. And later they should go for a long run, which would need many days of self charging.

Not that I believe what the "inventors" say, but the test should take their specifications seriously. Otherwise the "inventors" have a good argument, that the tester violated the specification.

My proposed test procedure:

- after receiving the wonder flash light, let's say we start the test a 19:00: let it shine for three hours (till 22:00)
- at 19:00 the next day: let it shine for three hours (till 22:00)
- at 19:00 the next day: let it shine for three hours (till 22:00)
- do that for let's say 7 days

- then let it shine from 19:00 till 07:00 (a 12 hour run)
- try a few seconds of light after 7 days, see if it has recovered, if it has, repeat a few days with a three hour run
- if it has not recovered after 14 days, well, the test is over, or if it has recovered, repeat a few days with a three hour run

So, it might take at least three weeks to prove the "inventors" wrong playing their game. Of course, if the 3 hour runs are not possible for 7 days, the test is over sooner. It would be pointless to do a 12 hour run if it can not do 3 hours per day.

May be what I say sounds complicated, but one should take the specification seriously, otherwise the test is not valid.

Greetings, Conrad