Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: hartiberlin on August 22, 2007, 09:10:17 AM

Title: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: hartiberlin on August 22, 2007, 09:10:17 AM
Have a look at this:

<<Hi Stefan,
I would like to post my Back EMF circuit here on your site
so everyone else can build this device, I made very clear drowing of the circuit
and sure there is a video is well that at least shows the input v/s output.
but I couldn't find a back EMF title or category 
Under what category would you recommend that I should put the link?
Here are links:
Back EMF  Video
How the Circuit works here

Best regards
Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: helmut on August 22, 2007, 11:17:43 AM
Hi Mehmet

I hope that you will join us as soon as possible.
You have done a good work and we owe you the biggest respekt.
I see many of us doing first proofe before the day is over.

One can see and feel  "The World is in Change"
Day by day new Inventions are presentet free and open sourced.

This is a sign.
This is how globalism should work.
People change information and feelings instead of Bullets and Rockets.



Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: Mem on August 23, 2007, 12:48:36 AM
Thank you for your welcome! I am here, and I'll be here.
as we know Just as a tree can?t survive with a single leaf, each innovative idea that?s brought forth is like another leaf on earth?s tree, the innovative ideas are needed for the survival of mankind.

Breakthrough energy innovations/inventions has yet to be appreciated unless can be controlled by corporations. For example fuel cell technology, sounds like great as it burns with 0 pollution.
Why is it that they want to put into a bottle sell it?
The best is to fill the car tank with water and produces the hydrogen on demand.
 Why wouldn?t industry support this? Excuses are many, but 1 main reason is money. If they could they would implant a microchip to find out how much air we breath daily so they can tax us for the air we breath.
Who gave them the right to claim, own and sell the earths land, country-by-country, town-by-town? Humanity is conditioned so deep that only death has the power to wipe away all hypnotic trans state. Waking up from this deep trans state is a rear event.         

But when it comes to energy inventions or an innovative idea or what advancement maybe we need to transcend from the ashes of the former self and give it away/share it as we do on this website.
Or else invention and inventor maybe a target to moneychangers in the land!

Most farmers do protect their cows with their guns and dogs. So are the energy / oil etc companies they protect their own interest (they see people as farmer owns he?s cows).
They do send their dogs come at you and if you are not scared then them come with their guns, if you become even a smallest threat to their industry.

But let me tell you this: no energy invention is ever a threat for oil or energy companies.
They should cherish and support every tireless inventor man, woman and child.

But they don?t:  Money ?god? allows them to have a earth wealth.   
But no wealth can be taken away from the earth; even they surrender their own flesh
 to old age and die! 
Anyway,  a simple truth that I see is to work together as a world wide community and by doing so we can develop and share many innovative ideas.
And even sell for it! Why not, if this is your passion and this what you would like to do I think we should support those people that so passionate to do this.

For example my Back EMF device I am not in position to make a sell it the just the control box, I know this device works. Has one moving part, which is just a ?Relay?, or with some innovative method even that can be eliminated.

If anyone can make this Back EMF pulse just a control device and sell it, please get in touch with me I?ll share with you all that I know and in return you gave me %.
I think this a great idea.

More over: Bedini and Ron Cole window motor. I like that motor. But the instructions are conflicting ?I wish someone would make and sell the kits or it could just a control electronic switching /charger part of course with Bedini and Ron Cole?s permission.
Or other innovative ideas should be made available one way or the other.
Anyway these are some of my thought on the subject.
I welcome any comments you may have on any subject. 
Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: z_p_e on August 23, 2007, 03:24:12 AM

Sorry, but I seem to have missed something.

I see nothing new here at all. The circuit is quite conventional.

I can assure you that there is no overunity here.
Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: Mem on August 23, 2007, 09:07:32 AM
<<There is no OU if you just read on your computer screan and think about it.
But if you take that circuit and built the way I say. 
you will have an first hand expereince too.

That circuit didn't come from the drowingtable, it came from the work bench.
Do this simple 5 minute experiment and you'll know lot more then you ever knew!
Take 1 or 2 D cell (or any kind of) batteries just do this;
First short them using a piece of wire under dim the light, observe the small discharge, using batteries only.

Then take those same batteries and short them on anything that you can find like; Induction coil or a transformer
you'll get the best results from primary site as you do this notice how large of an spark you'll get. Larger transformer will give you large output. This is basic "Back EMF"
This is what I call manual OU. if you are not convinced and you can't notice or see any access power?
This circuit is not for you. But if you see it then my circuit will help you to harnes that power automatically.
It's not a perfected circuit yet, until will operated smoothly in a continuous manner.

Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: gyulasun on August 23, 2007, 03:52:37 PM
Hi Mehmet,

I included two current meters in your circuit drawing (see below) and would like you to measure the current draw from Battery 1 and the current your 12V light bulb draws, ok?

The capacitor symbol in parallel with the current meter and battery 1 indicates 3 capacitors in parallel to cure/ease pulse measurement problems associated with digital current meters.

I would like you to use 2 current meters at the same time so that you should see them both when Relay R1 is switched off and then you operate Relay R1 with your timer and the output lamp will be very bright.
I expect nearly the same current draw in case 1 (when there is no R1),  and there must be a significant difference in the current values if you operate R1.  If you can use a third DMM to measure the DC voltage across the output bulb, it would be also great.

If you can only use one current meter, then please measure first the current draw from Battery 1 in both cases of R1 off then R1 on,  then place the meter to measure the bulb's current also in both cases of R1 off then R1 on, ok?

Would you mind doing these current/voltage measurements and report what you find?

Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: z_p_e on August 23, 2007, 06:26:39 PM
The generation and reclamation of bemf is one of THE most talked about topics on many forums, including this one.

I repeat, there is nothing unconventional about this circuit, and it is not ou.

I am not new to this particular subject, so I am not just commenting as a "pc hero".

Even if you take these measurements correctly (which as described in the above post is not the correct way), you will find RMS power out is less than RMS power in.

Claims based on bemf pulsers are made every other day it seems, but only because folks don't fully understand what is going on in the circuit, AND they never seem to make proper power measurements either.

We've been around this block several times already in the past, but if folks choose to go again, then so be it.

At least you should learn something in the process.

Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: gyulasun on August 23, 2007, 10:05:27 PM
Hi Darren,

I agree with you in that my current measuring suggestion above is not a professional one but perhaps for an average home experimenter (without oscilloscope) it may serve and give a useful insight whether the idea has any OU merit or not.

I also share the opinion of yours on back emf: regaining it is not ou in itself, for it fully originates from the input power and there are inherent losses.

With my current measuring suggestion I hoped to draw Mehmet's attention to practical reality but now I realize if measurements are incorrect I may even force one's belief in this back emf regaining circuit he built as a ou circuit...


Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: z_p_e on August 23, 2007, 11:32:02 PM

Proper measurements will yild proper results, and even taking "average" power measurements may be useful as you say.

No offence to this gentlman, but it's as if he has been living inside a closet for the last 20 years, discovers that you can pulse a coil and get bemf, that appears to be lighting a bulb with more power than a steady-state surce. Then he comes out claiming that there is power, voltage, and current gain in the design, and therefore is overunity, WITHOUT even taking any reliable or correct power measurements.

Well, welcome to isn't overunity, it is pulsed power. If the input power and output power are integrated over the time it takes for one pulsed cycle, one would find that although the peak power on the output is perhaps much greater than the steady-state input, overall, the power output is somewhat LESS than the input.

If I take a AA battery and transistor to step charge a 1000uF capacitor to about 100VDC, then abruptly discharge the capacitor through a 1 Ohm load, I could have a peak current of 100A. The rub is that this current is only for a few milliseconds. Does that mean it is overunity? No.


I have to say for myself, I am getting quite tired of these types of claims.
Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: Mem on August 25, 2007, 09:29:05 AM
<<Well gentleman (Darren and Gyula)
You have made valid points in your posts. Nevertheless have you honestly fooled around with back emf?
Have you actually experiment at first hand, charge and discharge various induction coils and what happens during that process? Have you tried to harness the discharge of induction coil either in capacitor, battery or using a light bulb?
If you haven?t and you claim you do you are a provocateur ! (purposely misleading  people)
I did a lots of experiments using a car battery that had less then a 5 amp in direct measuring the dead battery. 
After pulsing that battery less the 20 min. using above circuit dead battery was charged greatly, so much that when I short the wires of the battery I did not dare to try and take direct amp measurement, or else it would be fatal to my small amp miter.
This circuit can't be test it without any load at all! Or else will burn the relay contacts, high amp relay will burn the wires. (I have seen it many times) insulation starts to melt down first.
Gyula, taking measurements on a pulsing dc circuit by analog miters is not quite possible. Mesurment won't be accurate.
I wish some one would do above test with the scope and let us know what wave form will say.
Input v/s out put of a transformer.
The circuit is super simple; most people have all these parts at hand to test my findings.

Just do it fellows, by doing so you get your "personal" verification. Pointing the finger at me and accusing me with false claim indirectly, wouldn't be fair. That's not the reason I post my research here. I did, to give it away to world wide community simple way of harnessing energy, that people overlooked and miss the point all together.

If you honestly interested to see the results, just do the test above, that?s all I say to you! Larger the transformer will yield higher return.

Many people read this posts, therefore I hope that some one out here will replicate this and publish their findings. If there is no use of this circuit at all, then I'll ask Stefan to delete this Back emf form altogether. So busy people won't waste their time reading useless information here.
Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: wattsup on August 25, 2007, 03:08:12 PM

Don't remove a thing. Just keep pushing. All views here are possible as you may have already realized.

Here is a link to something I posted quit some time ago that can confirm one of your simple tests.,1761.msg18885.html#msg18885

Here is another interesting link I posted on Erfinders thread that got me in lots of hot water.  I always wondered why. Geez.
The first post.,133.msg31422.html#msg31422
The second post with corrected diagram,133.msg31428.html#msg31428

Sometimes the simplest designs are the best.

I think one of the problems for people will be the welding transformer. I think if you just used several tranformers with the primaries in series, this should also work.

Did you measure anything comming out of the secondary as there could be some extra juice there.

Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: z_p_e on August 25, 2007, 03:14:18 PM
I understand 100% of what you are saying Mehmet.

There are some things you should understand also.

Disclosing responsibly has always been a problem here. Folks become excited and quite prematurely disclose their "discovery" and claim that it is overunity.

Later of course, after some more experienced folks either point out the flaws, or someone trys to duplicate the results, the claims are proven erroneous.

All due respect to you Mehmet, but you have not done your due diligence, i.e. your homework.

I will concede one thing however, charging lead-acid batteries with bemf charges can elicit the negative resistor response a la Bedini, but there are few out there that claim to have done so. I am not saying it is impossible, just that no one I know has been able to do it.

So, in the case of your charging battery, you may have something, but even if you do, it is nothing new ok? Check into Bedini's work. He has been doing this since the 80's !!!

In regards to driving a resistive load however, sorry that's not overunity. It is simply bemf, which at the very best is 100% of what you put in to the circuit.

Folks with pulse motors have been capturing the bemf in their motor drivers for years, and I have also tried it. So yes, I have worked with bemf, but even if I haven't, there is so much information out there already about people that have worked on the very same thing you are, that it astounds me you have apparently not seen any of it.

I am not saying that you should not have come here and posted your work, nor that you shouldn't have posted your video on youtube, what I am saying is that it should not have been claimed overunity. The main reason why is because you have no proof. You admit yourself that one can not use regular meters to accurately measure what is going in and out of the circuit you posted, and since you have not done accurate measurements, how can you claim with any confidence that it is overunity?

That I'm afraid, is being precisely what you have just accused me of being....a provocateur.

IF, you want to post this sort of thing when YOU KNOW YOU CAN NOT BE 100% CERTAIN, please begin by stating that you have some interesting results and wish for input. That is all you can responsibly do....beyond that is just leading people on because you have no verifiable evidence. It's just plain wrong to do so otherwise.

Below is a post I made some time ago in a thread I started called "Disclosing Responsibly". @ ALL folks, please use this as a guide BEFORE posting any claims of overunity:

Folks, I wanted to start a topic to discuss what seems to be a heated subject at the moment, primarily due to recent claims of overunity.

The claim itself is not the topic per se, but the method, format, or process of how the claim is made and

The following is what I suggest as a start, and anyone is welcome to add their bit.

1) Decide and state what exactly you are about to claim:
Options here include:
a)100% certainty you have achieved overunity,
b) not 100% sure and asking for help to determine if it is so, or
c) that you are only observing strange effects and that you would like other users to provide feedback.

2) Regardless of which option fits your case, please provide in your post the following minimum parts:
a) A complete drawing or schematic of your prototype or test setup,
b) A clear description of what the device or circuit is, what you think the circuit is doing, or what you wanted it to do,
c) A list of references to any other devices or documentation you based your device on,
d) A list of proper power measurements (more on this later),
e) A photo of your setup is optional, but may be helpful,

3) For those with limited Free Energy Research experience, and/or electronics experience, please post a request for someone to review your steps 1) and 2) above, BEFORE making your post and disclosure,

4) Refine all the above listed elements with the feedback received from the more experienced forum users,

5) Make your disclosure post.

Title: Re: Mehmet?s BackEMF pulser circuit
Post by: wattsup on August 25, 2007, 04:18:38 PM

Actually z_p_e is right. Even though you feel there is OU, it is best to say that you have something interesting and would like input here. This way you simply bypass or ground all persons that think you are claiming OU. Then let the group confirm this with you.

Now, on the other hand, if you had verifiable good measurment instruments, the whole shebang as we would say, then by all means go for it.

Crying OU happenned to me a few times but I quickly realized the measurment mistake and came back to clarify the issue. I'm not saying this is your case.


While you're here, could you please, double please, even triple please, take a look at a post I made on Otto's thread located here;,2535.msg45336.html#msg45336

I have asked this twice already, once to otto and again to btenzer for some advise but no answer. I am begginning to think people here are avoiding me because of my open stance on SM.