Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims (Read 542639 times)

tinman · « **Reply #120 on:** November 15, 2017, 02:56:12 PM »

Quote from: Void on November 15, 2017, 02:38:47 PM

Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor.
They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance
capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.

Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.

tinman · « **Reply #121 on:** November 15, 2017, 02:58:07 PM »

Quote from: citfta on November 15, 2017, 02:40:44 PM

Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post. I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad. He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed. It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original. In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged. I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others. I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas. If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Respectfully,
Carroll

I think mags took my circuit as the one i was going to use in my replication.
He may have missed the bit about it being only a thought experiment.

The thought experiment being
-If the motor began to speed up when the switch was switched to position 2,then the generator would also start to produce more power,which in turn would cause the motor to speed up even more--and so the cycle continue's.

If this was the case,then the motor would be receiving more power than the batteries are delivering to it.
Would this be a true power amplifier ?.

Just a thought experiment that we could have tried along the way,with very little modification needed for the experiment.

Brad

Void · « **Reply #122 on:** November 15, 2017, 03:38:46 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:56:12 PM

Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.
Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.

Yes, they may not 'absorb' the current pulses equally, but because they are
all in parallel they will all still 'see' the same pulses coming from the energizer. This was
my point. The battery is still going to be subjected to pulses from the energizer when the
cap bank and battery are in parallel.

Void · « **Reply #123 on:** November 15, 2017, 03:49:30 PM »

The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'. What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...

All the best...

Magluvin · « **Reply #124 on:** November 15, 2017, 04:21:31 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:53:29 PM

Dear Erfinder

Your post's are now being removed.

You are no longer welcome in this thread--my thread.

So please start your own thread,if you wish to prove us wrong,by building a working Bedini machine,and presenting it to the members of this forum.

Cheers

Brad

Well Ive said what I wanted to, just to make the point on what actual replications are suppose to be. I wont post here anymore either. You can delete my posts also if you like.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #125 on:** November 15, 2017, 05:31:07 PM »

One more thing..

Sorry Carrol for putting up what you said as an example of what Im stressing for accurate replications. If we think as professionals on these things, then we should all be on board with trying to replicate to the best of our abilities to get the best base line as possible if we are going to really investigate these things seriously. People use to analyze and dissect videos to find clues as to if a claim was faked. Like there was this crazy guy Mylo that was claiming he had a Howard Johnson motor going and made vid after vid. Tk would point out the mr hand movements off camera that he did to keep the rotor going while aiming the camera at another portion of the device as diversion. Then the guy did other vids on glass dining room tables and shows getting up on the table and walking over it to try to prove there were no 'strings' attached, whatever.
Some viewers looked into the vids like it was CSI and found the fishing line loop going to the motor under the couch cushion that was driving the rotor. But we dont see that level of investigation these days. If we are serious about all this, and we should be, then we should be very detail oriented and not trying to idealize what is happening or what we think may be a better idea before we produce as best a replication as possible and study that first as a base line. Like the depictions show 1 battery. Then why change it to 2 in series?? There is no good reason to make any changes of what we can see of the build. Like we could look at some of the items in the photos that we can use as a reference as to size of things that we have no data on. People used to do that in the Whipmag days. I dont see that anymore.

So Id like to see everyone that gets involved to put those kind of efforts into these replication projects so there can be a straight up conclusion in the end. We are putting our selves up as judge and jury with this stuff. I think free energy is a serious enough thing that we should look at it as if the claimers life is on the line in order to get to the honest truth. Otherwise if the investigation is tainted or handled with initial bias, then the end results may not be felt as conclusive.

And what you said in the other thread about resonance. I get what you mean. Like I could just say that we get some advantages to the LC ringdown. But that ring down frequency is called what? Would it be called its resonant freq? I think so. Speakers have Fs or some call it Fo and it is the resonant freq of the speaker itself. Or reed switches, they have a resonant freq spec also, something that you want to stay away from in typical use for switching. So Ill change how I talk about that subject when it is not just a constant resonant reaction to a constant input or signal, like the speaker boxs are.

But I still think there are advantages to the ringing one way or the other.

Mags

Jeg · « **Reply #126 on:** November 15, 2017, 08:40:06 PM »

Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there.

Grumage · « **Reply #127 on:** November 15, 2017, 09:33:12 PM »

Quote from: Jeg on November 15, 2017, 08:40:06 PM

Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there.

Hi Jeg.

Now you're talking!!

So, what would happen if we have the capacitor across the coil? Would its charging affect the operation of your statement above? Or do we close the switch onto the capacitor and coil at the maximum?

Cheers Graham.

Jeg · « **Reply #128 on:** November 15, 2017, 10:32:34 PM »

Hi Graham

It will be charged as normally, but needs to be discharged before loosing its charges if it is not to use diodes.

(i erase that as wrong assumption)

regards

Jeg · « **Reply #129 on:** November 16, 2017, 10:34:00 AM »

Tuning the cap/coil to magnet revolutions per second seems to be to our advantage.

tinman · « **Reply #130 on:** November 16, 2017, 01:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Void on November 15, 2017, 03:49:30 PM

The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'. What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...

All the best...

John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad

Grumage · « **Reply #131 on:** November 16, 2017, 02:06:20 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 16, 2017, 01:49:23 PM

John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad

Indeed. And having studied this early device you can see how John morphed it towards a motor/generator like the SSG.

Cheers Graham.

Void · « **Reply #132 on:** November 16, 2017, 02:14:09 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 16, 2017, 01:49:23 PM

John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.
Brad

Hi Tinman. Keep in mind I was quoting John Bedini who was commenting on the Watson machine...

Edit:
Here is some info I found on Jim Watson's demonstration at the Tesla Symposium in 1984:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-energizers-1/
"Bedini’s demonstration was followed by Jim Watson, a research scientist living in Colorado Springs.
Watson presented two working devices similar to John Bedini’s. The smaller device was running during
Watson’s entire presentation and the audience could verify that the battery was being recharged constantly.
The larger device, which weighed 800 pounds, was demonstrated only for 10 minutes due to practical reasons.
During this time a constant load of 12kw could be withdrawn from the device. The device itself was powered by
two 12v car batteries. Jim sold us all out, and I have moved on to other things."

It sounds like Jim Watson didn't demonstrate either device very long, with the big machine only running for ten minutes.

I also read that the theory of where the OU is coming from in these Bedini setups is supposedly to do with shaking
up the ions or something like that in lead acid batteries, and supposedly causing the batteries to charge up in some
very unusual way. In that case it seems the cap discharge pulses that you send to the battery wouldn't have to equal
the power the battery is supplying. Power-wise it can apparently be less, and somehow if you get things 'tuned' right
the battery will supposedly stay charged up fully. So it seems there is some mysterious 'tuning process' involved in there
that you have to fiddle with to get the OU battery charging mode to occur. It seems this mysterious tuning process
to get the magic OU battery charging effect is what people have been having problems succeeding at.

All the best...

wattsup · « **Reply #133 on:** November 16, 2017, 03:55:08 PM »

@tinman

Oh boy. Is it not hard enough just to keep time for bench works but then having to put time on responding to such conversations makes it hard to work so I just don't know how you do it for so many years now. Full respect to you man.

So, just by the specs of your chosen main components as rated voltage, amperage, rpm for their standard operational mode, I will know if you have a chance or not. Standard components are made for specific tasks so if you can run them in their standard rpm ratings, you can expect a certain result. If in theory the stator is too small to send back what the dc motor needs, then stop and choose a better match. Don't do anything before you have that. The system flywheel can be hand turned to start it up. You want your battery rating to be around 2 volts below the gen rectified output. Do not forget that the 2 volts needs to be there while the stator is under drag. 20% of the battery amperage rating should equal the charge amperage available. No more. If not matching you may otherwise have to step up to charge the battery and hold enough amperage but that will cause drag that will lower rpm BUT increase torque. You know. When you increase rpm you decrease torque that pulls less drag that produces less amps output. All this is very standard EE. So once you have found that greatest balance of standard components, then you can start playing the control but before then, don't put one more minute on any mismatched toys. All your time is precious so choose well from the start. I have come to realize that most experiments are already checkmated by the low level of consideration given too component matching. Could say more if interested.

Last point on the act of replicating. Don't. Why would you want to replicate the same undisclosed methods and mistakes of the past because they promise something extra? Is your present intellect not good enough to tackle the puzzle of OU. @Erfinder says "replicate". hahaha. It's like saying "Flunk like the last guy". You have grown your brain for the challenges of today and not to replicate the errors of the past. In most cases, you can do mind experiments or small sectional bench experiments to test past notions without going through the tedious task of precise replication of something that has NEVER been proven to be OU.

Last last point. There is one force available to all that requires nothing electric, magnetic, electronic, inductive, capacitive, reactive, etc. It's called mechanical leverage and if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU. In terms of leverage, a dc motor sharing its shaft with a flywheel and a generator wheel is the worst mix possible even in Bedinis time, regardless of the control method then required to make up for the drag on the generator wheel exterior that will push back tenfold on the dc motor shaft. Sooooooooooooo........ You all should know enough by know about all these subjects that you should be able to work your mind bench at full width of effects so that all you will ever want to build is your own eureka moment device. Then you can post it before you build and ask for devils advocates to cut it down. If they can, then either modify it or dump it. Go to the next eureka idea and the next until all sides of effects are first considered and worked out in the mind before you deploy it on a build. Imagine how much terrain you will cover in the same time frame.

No leverage, no drag, no output.

wattsup

Grumage · « **Reply #134 on:** November 16, 2017, 09:00:16 PM »

The Rotor.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Confirmation of OU devices and claims (Read 542639 times)

tinman

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

tinman

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Void

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Void

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Magluvin

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Magluvin

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Jeg

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Grumage

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Jeg

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Jeg

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

tinman

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Grumage

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Void

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

wattsup

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims

Grumage

Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims