GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82869
  • *Latest: Umeshyam

  • *Total Posts: 501180
  • *Total Topics: 14911
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims  (Read 32096 times)

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2017, 03:37:44 AM »
 author=TinselKoala link=topic=17491.msg512968#msg512968 date=1510452990]


But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work.  8)
[/quote]

Ah yes

That is your self tuning thingy--isnt it?

 
Quote
you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained.

Yes--to date,none of the Bedini camp's claims have been verified

Quote
I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

I would have to agree,after watching most of his video's.

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2017, 03:37:44 AM »

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2017, 03:48:14 AM »
Dose any one have any objections to me using the below as the generator?,as it would be far more efficient than any hand wound bedini number.

At 2000RPM,it develops 620VPP from each phase.
In this case,we would just pull off one phase.
Probably will split the phase we are using in half,and parallel connect each half,so as to reduce the voltage to 1/2,as i dont think we need 600+ volts.
 These motors make great high frequency, very low cogging generators.

Also pictured is the 400 amp duel pole,double throw relay i will be using to switch from motor to cap discharge.


Brad

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2017, 04:57:49 AM »
The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.

Right, that is what I was saying. :) The only way the caps could be discharged lower than
the battery voltage is if something like a boost converter circuit was used to discharge them.
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point. This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.
Where is the high current coming from to charge the large capacitors fast if high current is what you are trying to avoid?
('High' and 'low' are relative terms however...)


Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'. If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot
of wasted time and effort. ;) Focusing on OU device claims that have at least been shown to be able to be self maintaining
in some way starts to be become an essential requirement after a while. :D Even that doesn't rule out potential hoaxes or fraud however.

The reality seems to be there are few OU device claims which look potentially promising where full essential build details are known. Either
essential build details are lacking, or the claims are otherwise lacking or suspect in various ways. This is why I personally have been focusing in the
last few years on testing potential concepts rather than trying to replicate specific device claims. It is not necessarily any more
productive, but at least I am in full control of the test setup details. :)





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2017, 04:57:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2017, 07:44:52 AM »
To try to clarify the point I was trying to make in my comment above,
what I was getting at is that if there is a claimed OU device which seems to possibly hold
some potential for being a real OU device, then if all the important build details are not known
(which is typically the case) then if you have an idea of what the key concepts are
supposed to be that are supposed to make the device OU, then another approach is to
try to think up some simple test setups which can put those specific concepts to the tests.

For example, if I remember correctly I think Grummage did some tests in the past with a
big flywheel where he was trying to test if a large flywheel may pull in extra energy from the
'ambient' somehow. So people could think how to do a basic test setup which would show
clearly if this is the case or not.

The other concept of having generator output coils presumably with large winding turn counts
to produce higher voltage rather than higher current (if I understood correctly) could also potentially
be put to the test in a simple and basic test configuration.

By separating out and putting concepts to the test in simple and easy to understand basic test setups
where ever possible, you may have a better chance of seeing if there really is anything interesting
going on there or not. Trying to replicate someone else's device in which you typically are lacking
important details may often not be too practical. That's my own approach these days anyway. :)



Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2017, 08:00:11 AM »
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512972#msg512972 date=1510459069]


 
Quote
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point.This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

Well,that is doable.
At 12 volt's,we would be allowed a current of 4.6 amp's.
The 12 volt series wound motor i am going to use surprisingly only draws 2.8 amps free wheeling =33.6 watts.
This leaves us with 20 watts to overcome any other friction added to the system,which in this case is 2 more bearing's,and the generators drag.

We must also remember that the motor is on only 50% of the time,and so would only consume 1/2 of that 33.6 watt's-->if the speed can be maintained at the 50% duty cycle.

Quote
I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.

No necessarily.

Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.

We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

Quote
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'.

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.

Quote
Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

Well,the Wright brothers never had the full detailed plans to build a plane either.They learned by building and trying it out,then made the changes needed.
In fact,every invention was trial and error--not from detailed plan's.
At least here we have a starting point,and claims to go with it.

Quote
There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.

Well,with this machine,there would be no such measurement error,as it is an electromechanical looped device.

If the battery drains down over a period of time--then it's shit. ::)
If the battery voltage increases over time--then it's good. :D

Quote
If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot


I have a few tricks up my sleeve that i want to try on this one anyway   ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2017, 08:00:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2017, 08:54:57 AM »
So,after a search through my large crate full of capacitors,i found these 4

I think they'll do the trick for a start.

So,now have all the bit's needed,including the relay switching circuit from the SMD experiments.

Time to build i think  ;)


Brad

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2017, 09:41:42 AM »

No necessarily.
Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.
We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

...

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.



Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2017, 09:41:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2017, 10:56:25 AM »
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512979#msg512979 date=1510476102]


Quote
Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Quote
I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)

There is only one way to find out,and that is-go into the project with an open mind,and see the results for your self.

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »
 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg512980#msg512980 date=1510476966]

 

Quote
yes...  I have an objection....  the device depicted in the diagram is labeled as an "energizer" not a generator.....  the information that the community was provided by Peter Lindeman "after the fact" should not be taken into consideration, why?  He never explained what it was, instead while intersted parties were distracted, he substituted the energizer for a conventional generator, alternator, dynamo, what have you....

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

Quote
If you insist on using this charging method, know that you will be at the mercy of Lenz, each time your cap is discharged below 620v, or whatever the maximum voltage is of your generator.  Some time ago I had an offline discussion with Matt Watts,  I shared with him how I interpret this situation and how to get around this limitation...

Are you willing to help out with this project in a straight forward manner ?,as in sharing how you circumvented the lenz drag,or perhaps completing the schematic as John had it.

Quote
Cogging is compensated for by the flywheel...so we don't have to care about that....The "energizer" in the example also uses an offset there are an even number of magnets and an odd number of coils....  one could setup an offset between an even number of coils and magnets, however, this is a more involved process...   Point is...cogging isn't an issue..

Yes,no problem with cogging with a good sized flywheel.
However,if there were an even number of magnets,and an odd number of coil,would mean that each the coils were not hooked in series or parallel,as each of there phases would be different.

Quote
The voltage at the output, through what mechanism it's produced, what level it must reach, these are issues of paramount importance.  The voltage must be HIGH, allowing for one to charge a relatively small capacity, between 10 and 200uf in a single impulse.  The mistake being made is to be found in how we assume the system accumulates energy over several cycles....it doesn't!

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

Quote
Look.....The fact that the community is even entertaining the idea of replicating this device shows that those chomping at the bit, ready to go weren't paying attention.  Bedini informed the community that the SG is the Watson machine!

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

Quote
The machine cannot run itself, not how its setup....  you might have a chance though, if you can convert the generator into a motor during the time when the prime mover is disengaged.....

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

Im guessing that it should be a pulsed motor though,and we are then to look at the inductive kickback as our high voltage source.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #39 on: November 12, 2017, 11:34:03 AM »

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.

Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions. :)

I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning. :)
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... If some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them. ;)


Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2017, 11:50:21 AM »
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512984#msg512984 date=1510482843]
 




Quote
Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.


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

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

Quote
Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions. :)

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

Quote
I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning. :)
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... IF some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them. ;)

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

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

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

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #40 on: November 12, 2017, 11:50:21 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #41 on: November 12, 2017, 12:10:44 PM »

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




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


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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

So please,refrain from posting here.

I have asked nicely.


Brad

Offline Grumage

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2017, 12:53:30 PM »
Dear Erfinder.

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

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

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

Cheers Graham.

Offline tinman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5019
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2017, 01:24:26 PM »

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


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


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


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

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


Brad

Offline stupify12

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM »
Tinman,

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

Will

 

OneLink