Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Yes. I did it with an electromagnet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjAQUkHuTn8

з.ы.
And what if we twist the magnetic field like air in a Ranque-Hilsch tube? Which separates the gas of the same temperature into hot and cold.
Lenz will come out in one direction, useful EMF in the other?
Crazy thoughts?
But how original... 

Floodrod

Would something like this be worth trying?

Many ideas have rolled through here, so I'm just bring up something to think about I mentioned before. If you are looking to wind another coil with your new wire, you might consider winding 2 parallel strands. Just so you can test some different arrangements. You can always hook the 2 strands in series and it will be just like a normal wind anyway. But you can hook different ends up and see the effect of trying to draw energy off one strand while running with another, or hook them in series opposite directions just to see how it would effect things. Just an idea you might think about that could give you more things to test and learn from if you are winding a coil anyway.


Also, if you are trying to save that iron core, wrap it in wax paper or something before you wind it. Or find a piece of pvc it will slide into nicely and wrap the pvc. That way you can slide the core out. It would also allow you to test your setup air core or iron core, and different variations of how far the core is slid into it and hanging outside the wire turns. Just different thoughts that may help you get more learning out of that bench time!

Keep in mind also, you are following down the path of experiments that Russ shared. Assume, you will have to try something totally different here somewhere. Keep thinking out of the box. Russ is VERY OPEN SOURCE. If he figured this out completely, he would have shown you the exact working device and exactly how to make it. So just following those assumptions, do not get discouraged. Just understand, this probably will not be an obvious solution or he would have nailed it down already. Just use that info to understand that what he did was share all his work so that we can find what he may have missed but was searching for. You are learning more at the bench than many learn ever with just thinking about stuff. That's exactly how it works, and why we have to keep at it. Because I have a feeling that the solution to free energy will probably be something completely counterintuitive that you have to notice by actually doing it and not just visualizing it. Like the double slit experiment in quantum physics. No amount of theorizing would have expected the results they get when they actually do it! If you have never looked at the double slit experiment, it's worth a look. Slightly off subject, but not as much as you might think. Could even explain a source of free energy. It's a fun little video that gets your brain moving if you haven't seen it yet.
https://youtu.be/Q1YqgPAtzho

I'm finally back home from a long trip so I can start hitting the bench again soon myself. A few thoughts about your project that keeps rattling around in my head I may need to try and explore a bit. I think I will wind some stuff to play with.
One of your earlier experiments APPEARED to neutralize the core of the coil seemingly from the induced current of Lenz law. I think you saw it as an increase in rotor speed but the discussion of having a core causing more slow than the speed gain kind of drifted the subject. I am thinking back to the result you did get. Even if having the core slowed the rotor more, the fact that you got an increase in speed at all is note worthy in my opinion. I think the amount of saturation decreased the rotor magnet attraction to that core. That can be useful. Of course using a different arrangment probably. But if we can get a neutralized core as a side effect of something we are already doing for another function, it could be an additional source. For instance, ignore a coil. A magnet rotor would attract to the metal and if it was neutralized at the moment it began to pass the center and pull away, we have rotation. If we didn't have to pay for that pulse that neutralized it and it was done as a side effect of something else we were doing, then we can get a free gain of energy to help offset something else. Not sure I even explained that well.

Thats actually just the simple test of removing that 2nd coil and core all together and get a speed rating and current draw without any additions so there is a baseline number to work from. Something is speeding it up. But the only way to understand what it is is just to narrow it down. As far as saturating a core to speed up a motor I have seen quite a few times in videos and stuff. It's usually done and not recognized as to what is really happening. There was a Thane heinz debunk video I saw this effect being shown. Now in his video, he described it as a debunk to thanes speed increase. I can't say I 100% agree, just that this effect is demonstrated and in his video, it does make sense. I'll try amd find it and add it. But the video I posted earlier of the torroid and the working concepts behind Stearns orbo shows neutralizing a core. It was a torroid, bit the concept is the same. I'll try and edit and add some links. I'm not saying this is what is going on, I'm just saying this COULD be the speed up you saw in that test and isn't to hard to debunk if it isnt. But this is me referring to one of your earlier experents, not so much your latest one.


Here was an old video of debunking Thane heinz. I'm not giving an opinion on that, and whether or not he actually did debunk thane heinz speed up effect, but he does do some valid experements that show saturation increasing speed.
https://youtu.be/kfRxsC9yumQ


And Here is one I posted earlier that simply shows a pulse saturating the toroid so the magnet is no longer attracted to it. Neutralizing that core per say. You are not seeing the magnet propelled away. It's just falling away because it is no longer attracted to it.
https://youtu.be/Xjhh0Jwj7vo


These I think could give the speed up of your motor test. It's a theory anyway.

I'm sorry, your not getting what I am saying on the debunk. We agree, the core will slow it down. The question is how much. The test without the coil or core all together to see the speed of motor and current draw will show you exactly how much you do lose adding that core there. Then when you induce the current from Lenz into it and it speeds up the rotor, you will know exactly how much it added to the speed, even though it will not get back more than you lost by having the core at all. Then you will have some base numbers to compare to. My point is, I don't think you got more speed increase than you lost simply by having the core. But you DID GET AN INCREASE.... that's note worthy and I don't think we should ignore it. Now it's a matter of explaining why amd trying to narrow it down. Once it is fully understood why, we can begin to manipulate it in different ways to maybe get use from it. I'm simply suggesting getting a set of baseline numbers to work from so you know where you are at in each experiment. The fact that younwere not able to get enough just using the air core also tells you that the core was imperative to the experiments speeding up result. But why? That's the question.

Sure, the point of the test comes from your original thought of what was happening. You originally saw a speed increase and thought that it was Lenz speeding everything up and we solved the problem. Later you have realized that a speed up, ignoring the original slow down, did not give us what we thought. It was an over all loss still, just less. Not having those original numbers causes that jump to confusions. Having those numbers helps document for future theories. For instance, now we know the core is definitely part of the equation. When we can see the speed up from Lenz, we can measure how much is generated causing it. We can then feed the same amount of current into the coil and measure the effects of saturation and if it is even enough power to cause any saturation at all. If it is not, then saturation is definitely not the cause. But without a set of baseline numbers, we don't even have anything to compare future teat results to.