Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: lanenal on August 23, 2008, 04:05:29 PM
-
An Adams Motor that charges its own supply battery?! Any comments on this idea with its schematic?
Please see the attached schematic.
P.S.: This schematic uses Reed switches to illustrate the idea, but I don't see why other equivalent stuff can not be used instead as well.
P.P.S.: For some experiments on Adams Motor with Reed switches: http://www.mintakafulcrum.net/
-
@lanenal
Hi,
You show a clever circuit, and this could be used for other circuits where you wish to switch a coil on and off (say an electromagnet from a battery) and you will be able to capture the flyback pulse from the coil and add the pulse energy back to the same battery when you switch the current off with the switches.
Did you design this circuit? I have not seen this published elsewhere yet.
Thanks, Gyula
-
@Gyula
Thanks for the encouragement, and for your nice observations. This circuit (if it could be called one) was inspired by the schematic for Mk3.0 found at http://www.mintakafulcrum.net/. The original one charges another battery, so I played with the idea of charging the same one (at least you can save one, and my hope was that it would be easier to prove overunity as there were disputes on how to measure output). With this simple schematic, I wonder what would happen if the switching frequency reaches to the range of 100Hz-800Hz? Would that draw some ether energy into the system? :)
Anyway, I wish this to be out there into the public domain, and anyone who is interested can take a look, make their own adoptions, and play with it freely.
Have a good one,
lanenal
-
With this simple schematic, I wonder what would happen if the switching frequency reaches to the range of 100Hz-800Hz? Would that draw some ether energy into the system? :)
@lanenal
I cannot answer your question unfortunately, on drawing some ether energy... I do not know.
But I am sure the change of frequency is always a good idea to find a "sweet point" somewhere in the f range because any coil with the given geometry it was just made surely have a preferred frequency where its properties are the best for a certain job, especially so for coils with ferromagnetic cores. In case of Adams motor though the RPM so the frequency can be changed up to some value where mechanical properties of the rotor may suffer already and become a limiting factor.
If you have not seen it, have a look at this link for a schematic where a similar problem is shown solved with two coils from member BEP here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2831.msg41943.html#msg41943 He gave some explanation in that thread earlier in his Reply#20 on that schematics.
Thanks, Gyula
-
@Gyula
Very thoughtful comments, they are really helpful. Along this line of thought, one idea comes to my mind is to apply this thing to Dragone's schematic as shown in the attachments. Specifically, my circuit can be applied to the driving coils to save input energy, and further boost up the efficiency. Dragone's schematic reports a 200% efficiency originally. Now suppose we can manage to save 50% input energy by applying my circuit (of course, should replace the switching mechanism with something equivalent), then the efficiency should be doubled, ending up with 400%. Now let's be conservative, suppose in Dragone's original circuit there were no OU effect, but just a very high, almost 100% transformation (or just apply my circuit to a high efficiency transformer!). Then with the addition of energy savings with the application of my circuit, a 200% COP can be expected, yes? An almost sure OU device, eh? :)
Cheers,
lanenal
-
... Dragone's schematic reports a 200% efficiency originally. Now suppose we can manage to save 50% input energy by applying my circuit (of course, should replace the switching mechanism with something equivalent), then the efficiency should be doubled, ending up with 400%. Now let's be conservative, suppose in Dragone's original circuit there were no OU effect, but just a very high, almost 100% transformation (or just apply my circuit to a high efficiency transformer!). Then with the addition of energy savings with the application of my circuit, a 200% COP can be expected, yes? An almost sure OU device, eh? :)
Hi,
Yes, you are right in your way of logical deducing it is almost sure OU device. The stress is on the word 'almost' I think but one should be optimistic of course.
By the way, I have not seen a convincing test report on that Dragone setup's alleged OU performance, to date... Bill Alek built it with all the bells and whistles that is all if I am not mistaken?
Keep the ideas coming! ;)
Cheers, Gyula
-
Yes, you are right in your way of logical deducing it is almost sure OU device. The stress is on the word 'almost' I think but one should be optimistic of course.
By the way, I have not seen a convincing test report on that Dragone setup's alleged OU performance, to date... Bill Alek built it with all the bells and whistles that is all if I am not mistaken?
Keep the ideas coming! ;)
Cheers, Gyula
Hi Gyula,
Thanks for thumbs up. And surely being cautious keeps it at balance -- probably only experiment will have the final say. I just read something from experimenters about Adams Motors, it seems not a good idea to feed back to the supply battery in certain configurations. Anyways, I am not sure if anybody reported here of successful Adams Motor replication? By reading the story of Robert Adams and his motor, I am almost sure it works (sorry, another 'almost', for I haven't seen one and built one myself -- I guess I need to learn a lot more to experiment).
Cheers,
lanenal
-
Hi Lanenal,
There is a very good link to 10 pages, the author of which is also a member here, he is Hoptoad. It is worth going through page by page and on the last one, page 10, he shows an experiment, where (as he puts it) bending of Lenz's Law happens.
This is his link: http://www.totallyamped.net/adams/
On this Forum you can see pulse motor topic that includes Adams motor too here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3318.0.html
Cheers,
Gyula
-
Hi Gyula:
Thanks for the references, they are nice. I think Hoptoad is kind of suspicious on the OU property of Adams Motor, he definitely hadn't seen a successful replication the time he wrote that stuff. I found another guide by Harwood in the Encyclopaedia of free energy here: http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/adamsmotor.htm , which boldly affirms the OU property.
Recently I was thinking about applying this self-charging circuit to Bendini's SSG (the Monopole or the Window motor), what do you think about this possibility?
Cheers,
lanenal
-
Here is how to apply the self-charging circuit to John Bedini's Monopole Energizer (or the SSG), feedbacks and comments are welcome.
Cheers,
lanenal
-
I can't see the gate of M1 steering M1 at all or am I missing something?
-
I can't see the gate of M1 steering M1 at all or am I missing something?
Yes, it should be modified I think. The collector of Q1 is to be connected directly to the gate of M1, (the gate of M1 should not be connected to anywhere else but the collector) and there should be no connection from the collector to M1's any other two legs (that presently seen horizontal wire from collector to M1 should be cut). This way the voltage drop across the collector resistor R1 will directly control the gate.
By the way M1 is a P-channel device I wonder?
Gyula
-
Yes, it should be modified I think. The collector of Q1 is to be connected directly to the gate of M1, (the gate of M1 should not be connected to anywhere else but the collector) and there should be no connection from the collector to M1's any other two legs (that presently seen horizontal wire from collector to M1 should be cut). This way the voltage drop across the collector resistor R1 will directly control the gate.
By the way M1 is a P-channel device I wonder?
Yes, I think you are right: both M1 and M2 should be P-channel devices. Note that R1 and R2 are supposed to be of very high resistance compared to L1, their main purpose is to raise enough voltage when Q1 switches to the ON state (When Q1 is in the OFF state, the gate voltage should be close to zero, yes?), for the gates of M1 and M2.
lanenal
-
hi,
Well, I do not think M2 should be p channel... it should be n channel and M1 can be p channel, this is how I understand such switches in your configuration. The best would be for you to test this circuit if you could afford the time, sorry, I cannot now.
And also please modify the schematics on connecting M1's gate to the collector instead of the positive wire (the question from Tink).
Let's try discussing this circuit, though mostly you have written it correctly in the text under your schematics. Q1, M1 and M2 are off state and the approaching magnet induces voltage / current in L1-L2, Q1 switches on and so do M1 and M2, current is able to flow from the battery through L1, its flux kicks the passing magnet away from L1-L2. Let me stop here for a moment: transistor Q1 will be switched off anyway around the time the magnet is kicked out because its base-emitter cannot get any positive bias from anywhere else, but it is still good if the base-emitter gets an extra switch off bias from L1's flyback pulse and this induces a counter current in L2, if so, this helps Q1 quickly reach and remain off state until the next magnet approaches again.
Regarding the values of R1 and R2, if you choose both to be say 1kOhm and let the collector current of Q1 to be 5mA, then the voltage drop on both is 5V and this 5V usually is enough to open the power MOSFETs (their usual threshold voltage is between 3-4-5V and there are special types with even lower switch-on thresholds, both in p and n channel polarities).
So in case M1 is p channel type, its source will be tied to the battery positive wire, its drain will go to L1-D4 common point and its gate directly goes to Q1 collector. And let M2 an n channel type, its drain goes to L1-D3 common point, its source goes to battery negative wire and its gate goes to R2 as shown. By using the two differing polarity types for M1, M2, their so called body diodes (that internally exist between the drain-source electrodes of each) will block each other should any unwanted induced current start flowing through them.
Now the question remains: will this be overunity? Well if you think the original circuit has got at least 80-90% efficiency without your regaining the flyback pulse energy, then the possibility is open for ou with your circuit at least to keep the battery in a charged up state, to keep it at a level where its terminal voltage is kept more or less constant for a long time. This would already show sure ou...
Do not forget the rotating wheel with the magnets also produces work and somehow it ought to be utilized in the overall efficiency quest.
rgds, Gyula
-
This guy clames to have modded an adams motor and it ran for 25 hours on a D cell battery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDcl3enEqqk
-
Here is how to apply the self-charging circuit to John Bedini's Monopole Energizer (or the SSG), feedbacks and comments are welcome.
Cheers,
lanenal
Pardon my intromission on this thread, but I am looking for an answer to get feedback to the source battery. On the graphic shown here there is an apparent resistor between R2 and Q1. If it must be there, what is its value?
Jesus
-
Jesus,
I can only give an "educated guess" which is you could try first around 47 or 100 Ohm and see any bad or good effect. It creates a negative feedback in the emmitter, so the higher its value the more it works against the approximate unity gain of Q1 (unity gain because of R1=R2 chosen). Also it may give some (little) separation to the induced voltage in L2 with respect to the gate control voltage of M2. And do not be surprised if you find there is little or no any effect of the resistor so you may omit it as well and short circuit its place. So start with a 47 Ohm.
Note the drawing error, gate of M1 should go to the collector of Q1 and not tied to the positive rail at all. Also the polarity of the MOSFETs as I wrote last year above, it still sounds good to me... :)
I hope member lanenal reappears here too.
rgds, Gyula
-
Jesus,
I can only give an "educated guess" which is you could try first around 47 or 100 Ohm and see any bad or good effect. It creates a negative feedback in the emmitter, so the higher its value the more it works against the approximate unity gain of Q1 (unity gain because of R1=R2 chosen). Also it may give some (little) separation to the induced voltage in L2 with respect to the gate control voltage of M2. And do not be surprised if you find there is little or no any effect of the resistor so you may omit it as well and short circuit its place. So start with a 47 Ohm.
Note the drawing error, gate of M1 should go to the collector of Q1 and not tied to the positive rail at all. Also the polarity of the MOSFETs as I wrote last year above, it still sounds good to me... :)
I hope member lanenal reappears here too.
rgds, Gyula
Thank you @gyulasun
Would you be so kind as to draw on the graphic included how to make the connections you recommend?
Also, Are the Mosfet numbers the correct polarity needed?
Jesus
-
Jesus,
I modified the schematic as I think it is correct from circuit theory point of view, of course I cannot say it is overunity because it utilizes the flayback pulse energy of the coils just like in the original Bedini circuit, the difference is the regained energy feeds the same source battery, not a separate one. You may also think on the question of charging and discharging a battery at the same time but do not be discouraged: the rate of discharge of the battery should slow down by this feedback!
The type of the P-channel MOSFET I indicated has an 55V maximum breakdown voltage, you may try to search for heftier types, though the 100-150V types have got higher drain-source ON resistance. If you do not operate the circuit without diodes D3 and D4, then the flyback pulse amplitude may not go harmfully high due to the continuos load from the battery.
Diode types are fast or ultrafast rectifiers like UF4001 (not 1N4001) to catch most of the flyback energy.
rgds, Gyula
-
Jesus,
I modified the schematic as I think it is correct from circuit theory point of view, of course I cannot say it is overunity because it utilizes the flayback pulse energy of the coils just like in the original Bedini circuit, the difference is the regained energy feeds the same source battery, not a separate one. You may also think on the question of charging and discharging a battery at the same time but do not be discouraged: the rate of discharge of the battery should slow down by this feedback!
The type of the P-channel MOSFET I indicated has an 55V maximum breakdown voltage, you may try to search for heftier types, though the 100-150V types have got higher drain-source ON resistance. If you do not operate the circuit without diodes D3 and D4, then the flyback pulse amplitude may not go harmfully high due to the continuos load from the battery.
Diode types are fast or ultrafast rectifiers like UF4001 (not 1N4001) to catch most of the flyback energy.
rgds, Gyula
I am asking you permission to post this diagram as it is shown here on my thread as a reference of a possible selfrun circuit. Can I?
Jesus
-
Hi Jesus,
You can post it but I do not think this circuit is overunity, maximum a near unity COP of 0.9 or say 0.99 if you consider the mechanical torque the rotor with the magnets represent.
So please do not call it a possible selfrun circuit, ok? I wish it were ou...
rgds, Gyula
-
Hi Jesus,
You can post it but I do not think this circuit is overunity, maximum a near unity COP of 0.9 or say 0.99 if you consider the mechanical torque the rotor with the magnets represent.
So please do not call it a possible selfrun circuit, ok? I wish it were ou...
rgds, Gyula
Thank you @gyulasun
I will post it as a feedback to the source reference circuit.
Jesus
-
Gyula & Jesus:
You guys did a really good job in collaboration and made the circuit looking really good!
I found a few small changes might be in order to make it work, which I have made modifications in it and attached the new circuit.
To make this work, some fine tuning will be needed to ensure that the two MOSFETs open and close simultaneously. Also note that half cycle of the trigger coil also get fed into the battery and that extra energy can get saved.
But, as Gyula already said, we don't fully understand Bedini circuit yet, so we don't know if OU is possible with this circuit.
lanenal
Jesus,
I modified the schematic as I think it is correct from circuit theory point of view, of course I cannot say it is overunity because it utilizes the flayback pulse energy of the coils just like in the original Bedini circuit, the difference is the regained energy feeds the same source battery, not a separate one. You may also think on the question of charging and discharging a battery at the same time but do not be discouraged: the rate of discharge of the battery should slow down by this feedback!
The type of the P-channel MOSFET I indicated has an 55V maximum breakdown voltage, you may try to search for heftier types, though the 100-150V types have got higher drain-source ON resistance. If you do not operate the circuit without diodes D3 and D4, then the flyback pulse amplitude may not go harmfully high due to the continuos load from the battery.
Diode types are fast or ultrafast rectifiers like UF4001 (not 1N4001) to catch most of the flyback energy.
rgds, Gyula
-
Hi Lanenal,
Thanks for the modifications, I agree with them, unfortunately I did not notice the diode polarity was wrong...
If I recall correctly, Bedini has never stated his (original) circuit is OU but he calls it "radiant energy" (which is thought to be coming out together with the captured flyback pulse in his circuit or the flyback pulse itself) that makes positive effects in the charged batteries, it is a chemical effect inside the batteries that happens after several charge/discharge cycles of treatments by his circuit.
rgds, Gyula
-
Gyula & Jesus:
You guys did a really good job in collaboration and made the circuit looking really good!
I found a few small changes might be in order to make it work, which I have made modifications in it and attached the new circuit.
To make this work, some fine tuning will be needed to ensure that the two MOSFETs open and close simultaneously. Also note that half cycle of the trigger coil also get fed into the battery and that extra energy can get saved.
But, as Gyula already said, we don't fully understand Bedini circuit yet, so we don't know if OU is possible with this circuit.
lanenal
Than you @lanenal!
Then the resistor will be variable or a pot and the diode goes the other way. That is okay with me.
By the way I was trying to get feedback to the source on one circuit I built and yesterday it blew up on an experiment I did.
Jesus
-
Is it possible to identify the values of the other components to have a complete schematic?
Thanks,
Charlie
-
Is it possible to identify the values of the other components to have a complete schematic?
Thanks,
Charlie
Hi noonespecial,
This is Lanenal's circuit, I hope he returns to you too.
As a hint, see my reply # 13 and 16 on the resistors values, potmeter R3 can be say 4.7 - 22 kOhm to adjust base current, depends on induced current in L2.
rgds, Gyula
-
Hi Guyla,
Glad we all agree with the modifications, as for the errors, they are all mine in the first place, thank you guys for sorting them out and for making fantastic corrections and improvements. ;D
As for the OU of the Bedini SSG, It is the best write up I have found on the theory behind the SSG
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Bedini.pdf
Which states in its abstract that "The system becomes an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium in its vacuum exchange, and permissibly produces COP > 1.0."
hope this help. (One more thing: if Beardon's theory is correct, then we might want to take out C1, when the OU happens in the battery).
@Jesus: thanks for the redone of the circuit, looks tidy!
lanenal
Hi Lanenal,
Thanks for the modifications, I agree with them, unfortunately I did not notice the diode polarity was wrong...
If I recall correctly, Bedini has never stated his (original) circuit is OU but he calls it "radiant energy" (which is thought to be coming out together with the captured flyback pulse in his circuit or the flyback pulse itself) that makes positive effects in the charged batteries, it is a chemical effect inside the batteries that happens after several charge/discharge cycles of treatments by his circuit.
rgds, Gyula
-
Hi noonespecial:
thanks for your interest. R1, R2 will be similar (notice the thing here: they are in serial, and the current flowing in them should be almost identical, and the voltage over them are used to switch the two MOSFETs), so that they can switch off the MOSFETs simultaneously. They can be quite big (to save energy), I would suggest values range between 5k-10k ohms, but you can experiment with it. The Pot R3 roughly agrees with Guyla's suggestion, but once again, no hard numbers. Finally, the pot that was not labelled is not essential for low voltage batteries, unless the voltage of the battery is really high (this pot allows you to play with higher voltages by keeping the voltages on R1 and R2 low).
I think Guyla might also be able to give you some further comments on this, I am grateful for his help and advices on improving this circuit.
lanenal
Is it possible to identify the values of the other components to have a complete schematic?
Thanks,
Charlie
-
Did anyone build that circuit? Is it good?
Any part names?
Thanks