Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device  (Read 287384 times)

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #330 on: August 08, 2013, 12:46:24 PM »
@TK
most people do not  know that AGM batteries have Unobainium in them. This enable many thing never thought possible before.
Kind Regards

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #331 on: August 08, 2013, 03:49:19 PM »
We have no idea why it only works with AGM's. All we know is that there are some really dedicated folks in this group who have tried it with both, including myself, and it does NOT work with FLA's. That does not mean it won't work with SLA's which are basically just AGM's, but so far no one has tried that. We are trying to keep everyone informed so that folks who are trying to replicate are NOT wasting their time, and what we are seeing is that FLA's don't work.


Dave


I am going to go ahead and run the tests I said I would run with the FLA's, and then run the same tests with my AGM's, and post the results of both. That we we can rule out FLA's if that is what needs to be done, and focus on AGM's in the future.


Dave

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #332 on: August 08, 2013, 04:56:30 PM »
Well, just yesterday you said it would only work with AGMs. So now you are saying that you don't really know that, because you haven't tested all other types of batteries.  OK, that's fine with me.

Now... it doesn't work with the FLAs that people have tried. So your conclusion is that it doesn't work with FLAs. I can think of another conclusion, but never mind.

Eventually I suppose it will come down to something like,  it doesn't work with _my_ AGMs, only _yours_.

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #333 on: August 08, 2013, 05:30:46 PM »
Just to make myself perfectly clear.. I had an original setup that I have been working with for five years. That setup worked FOR ME on AGM's so in my original instructions I said it ONLY worked on AGM's because I did not want people trying other kinds of batteries and having NO success and thinking I was full of crap. Over the course of five years people DID try it on other kinds of batteries and some reported success with both SLA's and FLA's, so we modified the original information to include those kinds of batteries, but also said it worked BEST on AGM's. I never tried ANYTHING but AGM's until recently with that setup, and with mixed results.


Recently we have come up with a CHANGE in that original circuit. Instead of three batteries it uses five. We have seen success with this new circuit ONLY with AGM's. People have tried FLA's and had NO SUCCESS. We have NO reports of success with SLA's. So at this time we are NOT SUPPORTING the idea that it works with SLA's or FLA's.


TinselKoala,
If you try it with CONDITIONED AGM's as we have said and it doesn't work for you, you will be the first person it HASN'T worked for that has reported in, so please report your results be they positive OR negative.


I did not believe in all this "free energy crap" when I ran my first experiment with my original setup. I thought it was pretty funny stuff. Another guy and I were just killing some time. But I cannot discount the tests I have run over the last five years. YOU can discount them because you have not run them, and I don't blame you one tiny bit. People need to see this for themselves. That's why I brought this to the forums in the first place. But it is absolutely AMAZING to me how many people automatically discount every word I say without taking the time to try this for themselves...just so they could come back here and tell me I am full of crap if for no OTHER reason.  And then they want ME to run all kinds of experiments to prove I am right, when they aren't going to believe my results no matter WHAT they are anyway. It's all a big game.

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #334 on: August 08, 2013, 06:25:23 PM »
David,

I think it will be difficult for you to get any conclusive results from testing and measuring AGM's. As I mentioned earlier, a battery analyser will give a good idea of how much capacity is lost from the primary battery set but this will not be anywhere near a precise measurement. Nonetheless, its worth doing, so that at least you have some test data. Quite how you determine how much 'unlocked' energy from the dead batteries in your five battery setup is helping run the loads, I don't know.

What will be important for those that have witnessed the manifestation of this abundant free energy, is how to harness it to power a practical application.

Hoppy

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #335 on: October 19, 2013, 06:05:55 PM »
If you're interested enough in this thread, go check out what we are doing at:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-99.html


We have come up with a test I HOPE will satisfy everyone, and will be conducting it as soon as the parts get here. Meanwhile, we are DANG close to having solved all our issues and have a stable setup anyone can build.


Dave

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #336 on: October 19, 2013, 11:53:58 PM »
If you're interested enough in this thread, go check out what we are doing at:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-99.html


We have come up with a test I HOPE will satisfy everyone, and will be conducting it as soon as the parts get here. Meanwhile, we are DANG close to having solved all our issues and have a stable setup anyone can build.


Dave

David,

Please post a diagram on this thread showing the configuration of batteries and motors etc that you are currently using, together with notes on battery conditions necessary to fulfill requirements for a stable setup. I'm sure a few of us would like to come on board with experimentation.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #337 on: October 20, 2013, 12:45:56 AM »
I was wondering, with all due respect. To those who claim something special is going on and there is a more energy out than energy in situation or effect taking place.

!) Exactly how can it be that more energy can come out of a device than energy that goes into a device, including all the energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to first charge the batteries ?

2) In other words how can anyone expect to get more energy out of a device over an extended period than work that was done to create the materials and construct all the parts of the device in the first place and all the energy contained within the materials the device is actually made from ?

The way I see it it is completely impossible for any system to output more energy then is input into said system at all previous stages of construction of the materials and device.

ie. The energy used to initially charge all the batteries and the energy locked up in all of the actual matter the entire device is constructed from.

Logic and common sense says that for it to come out it must first go in, unless something is created from nothing.

In other words actual OU is impossible by definition. Energy cannot be created from nothing, it is not possible to create any actual thing or work from nothing. To me that is pure logic.

Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device at some point previously, before it is possible for it to come out.

So I ask can anyone explain exactly how they expect a device to output more energy than is input into the device and it's components previously ?

..

   

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #338 on: October 20, 2013, 01:43:28 AM »
Farmhand,
I see you on various threads here and at EF, carefully explaining why OU is not possible. Don't you ever get tired of being so negative all the time? Why it's almost as if someone was PAYING you to be so negative. LOL. But you have outdone yourself this time. If my device doesn't put out as much energy as it took to manufacture the wire and steel and the batteries it was made from it is not a real free energy device?? You have truly lost it! I can't wait to copy and paste what you posted here onto the thread at EF. They are gonna laugh until it hurts.


Either you BELIEVE OU is possible, or you don't. Having seen it for myself on many, many occasions, I have no trouble AT ALL believing it is possible. Now that doesn't mean I buy in to 99.9 percent of the nonsense that is on these forums, because I don't. Unless I can see it with my own eyes and touch it with my own two hands, you would have a heck of a time convincing me it is for real. Now as to your question, how can you get more out that in?


Have you ever been on a sailboat? If you set your sail just right, you can take advantage of the wind that blows and get more work out than YOU put into the system. With the 3BGS, we have built a sail that collects the free flux that is all around us. Believe it or don't. I could care less. If you take the time to build it, you will see.
How does putting a capacitor across a diode raise the voltage drop that occurs across a diode? The voltage is lower on the output side - so where does the energy come from to raise it when you put a capacitor across it?[/font][/size]
The ambient itself raises the voltage on the output side plate of the capacitor to raise it to match the input side of the capacitor thus raising the voltage across the diode and negating the voltage drop across the diode. You did not supply this energy - the ambient did so for you. This is the kinetic ambient background aether that Tesla talks about. Because it is kinetic, you can get it to do work for you by leading it about via electrostatic charges. That's all we are doing. [/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
I know you've seen the thread at EF. You wouldn't come on there and spout this drivel because there are FAR TOO MANY of us on the 3BGS thread who have seen this work and YOU know it. Instead, you come over here where few people know about it and try and put a damper on getting folks involved. Silly man! It's far too late for THAT!![/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
We have already figured out that you can flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and when you do, you create a negative resistor that sucks in the flux and allows you to use it as energy to run loads. All we're working on now is a consistent method for flipping that magnetic polarity. Too many of us have seen it happen with the 3BGS for anyone to stop us now. Too many of us have had setups that ran for hours or days or weeks. With the folks we have working on it, it's only a matter of time, and then people like you who couldn't cut their way out of the box they are in with a chainsaw will be left way, way behind. [/font][/size]

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #339 on: October 20, 2013, 01:50:43 AM »
Hoppy,


The link to the schematic we are using is here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html#post235538
And it is post 2335 on that page.


Be advised that things may change drastically very shortly. We have learned that reversing the magnetic polarity on a battery SEEMS to turn it into a negative resistor, and it self charges. If you keep a load on it to prevent it from charging, you can continue to pull the flux out of the ambient environment. FOr how long, we don't know yet. So we are focusing on two things...finding a consistent way to flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and seeing how long this negative resistor will last. Way may only need ONE battery.


Dave

Offline Bob Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #340 on: October 20, 2013, 01:59:26 AM »
I was wondering, with all due respect. To those who claim something special is going on and there is a more energy out than energy in situation or effect taking place.

!) Exactly how can it be that more energy can come out of a device than energy that goes into a device, including all the energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to first charge the batteries ?
Fair question, Farmhand.   That is, if we are only dealing with the "energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to charge the batteries."  Anyone who knows this system and its dynamics would agree that this is a logical assumption. 
However, some of the builders of the 3 Battery Generating System are openly acknowledging that energy is coming into the system from the electrostatic environment itself.  Therefore, if more energy is coming out of the battery than what can be derived from its construction materials and charging, we need to consider other explanations as to the origin of this supposedly excess energy coming out of the battery.
Quote
2) In other words how can anyone expect to get more energy out of a device over an extended period than work that was done to create the materials and construct all the parts of the device in the first place and all the energy contained within the materials the device is actually made from ? 
The way I see it it is completely impossible for any system to output more energy then is input into said system at all previous stages of construction of the materials and device.
I believe this is a rephrase of your first point, perhaps as a thoughtful point of clarification, lest your initial question be misunderstood. And again, a fair question that deserves a logical explanation.  I, along with some of the builders of this device would argue that the notion of getting more energy "out" needs to be nuanced.  "Out" according to the way you express it, seems to imply that the energy produced must have been "inside" the battery, either through its construction or charging.  I believe that some of the builders are now saying that the so-called "excess" energy is actually coming INTO the 3BGS "THROUGH" the battery. In other words, the battery is acting as a kind of aerial or receiver for ambient electrostatic energy. I am therefore suggesting a shift of electrical paradigm or horizon is necessary to comprehend what is happening in this system, according to those who maintain that it is drawing in excess energy. 

Quote
ie. The energy used to initially charge all the batteries and the energy locked up in all of the actual matter the entire device is constructed from.
Any physicist worth their salt would acknowledge there is enough energy locked in a glass of water to make one hell of an explosion. It would surely follow the same is true for the materials locked in a battery's material components. However, I don't think that's what you're referring to, and I don't think this is what the 3BGS builders are referring to as the source of excess energy OUT, either. 
Quote
Logic and common sense says that for it to come out it must first go in, unless something is created from nothing.
It seems your logic has broken down here Farmhand. Your premise in the above statement is sensible within the contemporary paradigm (which would exclude electrostatic forces coming into play in this system) to which most EEs would subscribe.  Makes good sense from this perspective.  However, you then seem to invite the reader to assume that the only exception to this premise (expressed with the term "unless") is that "something is created from nothing."  This second step in your logic seems to abandon any environmental, physical or measurable explanation and enters into the metaphysical or theological notion of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) as the only other viable (and ridiculous, I assume) answer.  I believe that you have failed to consider other sources of energy coming into the battery - namely the ambient electrostatic environment.  Without considering this possiblity, the "something out of nothing" conjecture, which seems to discredit the whole 3BGS system, is out of place, and potentially misleading.  It would appear to me that your are leaving out some important possibilities in your progression of thought.
Quote
In other words actual OU is impossible by definition. Energy cannot be created from nothing, it is not possible to create any actual thing or work from nothing. To me that is pure logic.
Absolutely correct!  No one on the 3BGS thread has ever suggested that energy is being "created" from nothing. Why, to do so would be to ascribe to one's device, or even worse, to oneself as its developer, some sort of godlike powers of  "creation" ex nihilo.   So therefore, if we are all mortals obeying the law of conservation of energy, and cannot create "something from nothing," and the 3BGS is putting out what appears to be excess energy, perhaps it shouldn't be called "overunity" as per your statement, which echoes similar sentiments expressed by many, many others.  Perhaps to use the term overunity in fact does a disservice to the nature of this device, and the energy that it uses, coheres (transforms?) and makes available.
So what to do?  IF more energy seems to be coming OUT of the 3BGS than what went IN through its construction and charging, perhaps another explanation is needed, as I have explained above.
Quote
Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device at some point previously, before it is possible for it to come out.
Not necessarily.  Logic tells us that the origin of "any energy coming out of any device" must be explainable.  And such an explanation must take into account factors which involve the ambient electrostatic environment, among others.  Perhaps a nuance of this statement might help, re-phrasing it to read,
  "Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device, either at some point previously, or during its actual time of operation, before it is possible for it to come out."
Quote
So I ask can anyone explain exactly how they expect a device to output more energy than is input into the device and it's components previously ?
..
Again, I believe that without an additional temporal frame of reference (i.e., "or during its actual time of operation"), your question, although interesting, fails to take into account key factors which might explain the 3BGS operation.  Without including these factors in your own analysis of this system, I am afraid your efforts to understand it will be an exercise in frustration. 

Bob

Offline Bob Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #341 on: October 20, 2013, 02:44:00 AM »
Be advised that things may change drastically very shortly. We have learned that reversing the magnetic polarity on a battery SEEMS to turn it into a negative resistor, and it self charges. If you keep a load on it to prevent it from charging, you can continue to pull the flux out of the ambient environment. FOr how long, we don't know yet. So we are focusing on two things...finding a consistent way to flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and seeing how long this negative resistor will last. Way may only need ONE battery.
Dave
Dave, for what it's worth, I had a similar experience with my batteries running UFOPolitics' 3 and 5 pole motors.  My batteries would go into negative polarity, and I assumed this was the radiant charging them (as negative). Running these DC motors seemed to condition the batteries this way, but I didn't see beyond the novelty of it toward a useful prospect the way you, Matt and others have. Your work is very encouraging.
Bob

Offline a.king21

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #342 on: October 20, 2013, 03:13:12 AM »
Especially for FARMHAND:


TESLA:  A FEW WATTS IN --- BILLIONS OF WATTS OUT:
He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration; the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces. A vibrating assembly with an adjustable frequency was finally perfected, and by 1897, Tesla was causing trouble with it in and near the neighborhood around his loft laboratory. Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it .  Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #343 on: October 20, 2013, 03:55:50 AM »
Especially for FARMHAND:


TESLA:  A FEW WATTS IN --- BILLIONS OF WATTS OUT:
He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration; the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces. A vibrating assembly with an adjustable frequency was finally perfected, and by 1897, Tesla was causing trouble with it in and near the neighborhood around his loft laboratory. Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it .  Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

Hi A. King, It's been stated many times before and is well known that a capacitor can be charged with a small wattage over a longer period and discharged at a much larger wattage over a shorter period, even Tesla explained that. There is no extra energy in doing that, similarly a coil can discharge at a much higher wattage than was used to charge it. Means very little except it can be very useful.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #344 on: October 20, 2013, 08:04:21 AM »
Hi A. King, It's been stated many times before and is well known that a capacitor can be charged with a small wattage over a longer period and discharged at a much larger wattage over a shorter period, even Tesla explained that. There is no extra energy in doing that, similarly a coil can discharge at a much higher wattage than was used to charge it. Means very little except it can be very useful.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..
I think what Aking is trying to instill, is the fact that a tapper box with a hand wound spring, tapping on a lower girder of a frame of a large building, was able to induce a large amount of energy in the building structure and that energy is more than what the tapper put out in total. So in the end, it should be possible to wind the tapper spring with the energy of the moving building and still have some left over. So we should be able to model the mechanical example to an electrical example.

In my mind, the impact of the tapper needs to be high as compared to the amount of vibration in the girder where the tapper was applied. Like when the building was in full shake, or swing, down below, where the tapper was applied, there most likely isnt much movement as compared to any parts of the building above that height. So how do we model that in an electronic circuit?

My first guess would be just for simplicity, we have a microwave oven transformer, where we make the large fine wire inductor with a cap as an LC. Then we have a ramp gen charge a tiny cap to a high voltage and discharge that cap into the primary winding, the low ohm winding, in time with the freq of the LC.

Now, if we were to figure out a mechanism to wind the tapper spring, what part of the building would we be able to extract enough motion from the building to wind the spring a bit at a time, without killing the source(the building in motion)? 

I would probably look to the top of the building, where the most motion is happening. If say the building is moving 6in, left to right, would using that force to wind the spring enough to keep the tapper going, would that be enough resistance or damping to kill the buildings movement? ;) ;D

Mags