Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: hartiberlin on October 24, 2008, 02:22:58 AM
-
Hi All,
have a look at this motor:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uoC5V53Iols
He is getting overunity with it.
18 Volts x 200 mA input= 3.6 Watts of input power.
110 Ohmx x (0.190 A)^2= 3.971 Watts Output !
That is a overunity COP of 1.1 !
Congratulations !
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
-
With such good measurement techniques and instrumentation, I have no doubt that you are correct. Definitely overunity.
So it would be trivial to hook the output up to the input and watch it run itself, without an external source of power. At last.
I will be looking forward to the awarding of the Overunity Prize to this inventor. When will you be sending him the check, Stefan?
-
Well, he surely has to measure it with a scope to be sure.
But maybe he will get it to feed back and have a selfrunner ?
Although, at COP= 1.1 this is probably not possible...
He would need at least COP= 2 to 3 to get a stable feedback....
Also then it needs to put out 1 Watts additionally to apply
for the OverUnity Prize.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Oh, I forgot about the One Watt requirement.
So, assuming it could self-run and produce, say, 100 mW excess, would it be legal to assemble 10 of them together, to get to the One Watt requirement? If not, why not? After all, something like a Johnson Noise Diode Array would also be assembled from many smaller units each only contributing a part of the power.
I don't see why a COP of 1.1 wouldn't allow self-running. By your own figures, the device creates 371 mW excess power. That means it makes the same amount of power that it uses, plus 371 milliWatts more. So, unless your power storage/transfer system is remarkably inefficient, there is plenty of power to run itself. If a battery charger system has too many losses, try capacitors. Capacitative power storage can be very efficient.
-
Okay, if it is under 25 Kg in weight all in all
and all devices selfrun and put out a total of 1 Watts free energy, why not...
Regards, Stefan.
-
Way to go Stefan! Good decision.
Bill
-
I am tired and fried mind.
Ho god, I need to rest.
-
Hi!
@hartberlin
I dont know but I saw that the motor was using a bigger amount of amperes than what was putting out the whole time.
Forgive my ignorance, but I cant see how you got the numbers for the overunity. If the input is 240ma and the aoutput is 200ma I think that it is loosing 40ma in the process.
I can be wrong though.
Jesus
-
@nievesoliveras,
Attached is a drawing of Ohm's law. Print the drawing and put in on your wall.
U = Voltage, R = Resistance, I = Current and P = Watt
Use Voltage, Ohm, Ampere and Watt when calculating a value.
The input was 18 Volt and 200 mA = P = U * I = 18V * 0,2A = 3,6 Watt.
The output was 240 mA across a resistance of 110 Ohm, so
P = R * I * I = 110 * 0,19 * 0,19 = 3,971 Watt.
COP = OUTPUT / INPUT = 3,971 / 3,6 = 1,103
Groundloop.
-
I have watched the video over and over again.
The text says 18Volts input 210mA output 200mA.
and 18Volts input 200mA output 190mA.
That means the loss of power is 10mA.
Were do you get this over unity COP=1.1
Unless I'm understanding his labeling wrong.
-
@AbbaRue,
The inventor "skycollection" says:
yes, the output was 190mA, TESTING with 18 volts, (run battery). yes i mean avramenko plugs. the consuption of my motors is 200 mA and produce 190 mA, loading voltage, with 2 resistances in parallel of 220 homs.
He is running the output into a 110 Ohm resistor. He is saying that he run the motor
with 18 Volt input voltage at a current of 200 mA. He is running the output into a resistor
load of 110 Ohm (two 220 ohms resistor in parallel is 110 Ohm) and the current through
the resistors is 190 mA. Now use the Ohm's law and do the math.
Groundloop.
-
Oh god people on a forum named overunity don't even have an idea of what overunity means...
okay so let's say all the calculations were done correctly (chuckles....) and that it really creates more output than "input".... when the magnets die then it will create less output than input = the term overunity is not properly used.
Magnets have a limited lifetime... see? now make the connection.. no freaking overunity.. imagine magnets as fuel...little spark -> lots of energy due to fuel explosion .. overunity too? NO.. just energy released from the fuel thanks to the little spark... magnets = fuel ... period..
-
Oh god people on a forum named overunity don't even have an idea of what overunity means...
okay so let's say all the calculations were done correctly (chuckles....) and that it really creates more output than "input".... when the magnets die then it will create less output than input = the term overunity is not properly used.
Magnets have a limited lifetime... see? now make the connection.. no freaking overunity.. imagine magnets as fuel...little spark -> lots of energy due to fuel explosion .. overunity too? NO.. just energy released from the fuel thanks to the little spark... magnets = fuel ... period..
You are real idiot ;D neo magnet lifetime is over 100 years, you will be very dead at this time
-
Did I ever say something about the actual length of the lifetime? Nope I sure didn't... limited = no overunity :) .. now if magnets had some kind of a free energy (which means tapping into some kind of a never ending source of energy) source in them now that would be overunity.... btw there are some great papers on the whole confusion of how much energy stored in magnets is and what has to happen for this energy to weaken ;)
-
OU or not as long as this will have no other fuel source and will power my house/car in the near future
then fine by me.. :D
-
OU or not as long as this will have no other fuel source and will power my house/car in the near future
then fine by me.. :D
Yes that's the spirit.. we all want this.. I especially hate the oil.. expensive and creates problems (wars&stuff.. I don't believe in global warming) ;)
-
Did I ever say something about the actual length of the lifetime? Nope I sure didn't... limited = no overunity :) .. now if magnets had some kind of a free energy (which means tapping into some kind of a never ending source of energy) source in them now that would be overunity.... btw there are some great papers on the whole confusion of how much energy stored in magnets is and what has to happen for this energy to weaken ;)
So calculate how many times you can remagnetize these magnets with energy created over 100 years period, the energy created is much much times more than stored in permenent magnets.
-
Oh god people on a forum named overunity don't even have an idea of what overunity means...
okay so let's say all the calculations were done correctly (chuckles....) and that it really creates more output than "input".... when the magnets die then it will create less output than input = the term overunity is not properly used.
Magnets have a limited lifetime... see? now make the connection.. no freaking overunity.. imagine magnets as fuel...little spark -> lots of energy due to fuel explosion .. overunity too? NO.. just energy released from the fuel thanks to the little spark... magnets = fuel ... period..
Your comment shows that you really don't have much idea of how much energy does take to magnetize a material, nor what the duration of the magnetized material remaining magnetized is.
If you do it right, interaction of magnetic fields between magnetic materials can even lead to a streghtening of the magnetic properties of each piece of materials, and not a weakening.
Even if the magnetic material would become hipotetically demagnetized after a period of some years of use, OU can hold true as the integration of all power generated minus all power inputs still would yield a net positive overunity result. You can of course design interactions that quickly demagnetize a magnetic material, it all comes to the relation between the magnetizing force over a magnetic material field going out of certain boundaries, but within these boundaries, that are a property of each magnetic material, demagnetization does not occur.
.
-
Your comment shows that you really don't have much idea of how much energy does take to magnetize a material, nor what the duration of the magnetized material remaining magnetized is.
If you do it right, interaction of magnetic fields between magnetic materials can even lead to a streghtening of the magnetic properties of each piece of materials, and not a weakening.
Even if the magnetic material would become hipotetically demagnetized after a period of some years of use, OU can hold true as the integration of all power generated minus all power inputs still would yield a net positive overunity result. You can of course design interactions that quickly demagnetize a magnetic material, it all comes to the relation between the magnetizing force over a magnetic material field going out of certain boundaries, but within these boundaries, that are a property of each magnetic material, demagnetization does not occur.
.
I agree, permanent magnets do not demagnetize. In my opinion, magnets over time or by abuse become misaligned when the "pinning" material fails to hold the alignment of magnetic particles. I think that the magnetic field is powered by a natural behavior within a magnet at the atomic level. No energy is stored in a magnet when it is aligned or created. The magnet is not "magnetized" when created. If it was, you could store energy in a magnet like a battery, and we know that we can't charge, discharge or recharge magnets. We can only realign them as long as the pinning material will hold the particles in place.
-
I was working on a newman motor, but after seeing this, I'm changing lanes.
-
hi all
it would be great to find that someone has finally measured OU output generated by a Bedini motor setup
before we get too excited with this latest report i think we need to see:-
- the exact circuit being used
- where in the circuit the measurements are being made
- if the builder's taken all necessary steps to ensure the measurements are valid (eg. is the output a pulsed waveform? if so, does his meter give a true Average Current reading for this waveform?)
- if it's possible to confirm the output results using a second method (eg. scope trace data & Excel)
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
-
at least ....
you cant see the input voltages not the output voltage
if the output voltage is half of input voltage ... ?
than the losses are more then 50%. (if near equivaltent current)
Any SHOW is an nonsense if it not displayed
the voltage AND the Amps ! ( (V time A = VA (Watts))
so the next problem in this Video is:
Motor is DC driven !
Output is this way AC.
No belive any video or scematic , take an lttle "basic-sciences"
first.
GP
-
@nul-points,
Good point. He is using two digital multimeter's to measure the current.
There is no way the measurement can be correct when measuring pulsed DC.
Only a true RMS meter or scope readings can confirm the measurements.
@pese,
I agree with you, there is not enough information in the video to confirm o/u.
Groundloop.
-
Just close the f**ing loop ;)
-
@Nostradamus2,
Closing the f...ing loop is not easy with pulse motors. If you build a pulse motor and use
a lead acid battery (LAB) on the input then the input impedance of you motor is very low. The internal
resistance of a LAB is typically in the mOhm range. So, if you just connect the output of your
motor direct to the input battery then you have "killed" the output voltage. It will not work unless
you find a way to impedance match the output with the low resistance of your input battery. I do not
say that this is impossible, it is just difficult to do.
Groundloop.
-
Magnets have a limited lifetime... see? now make the connection.. no freaking overunity.. imagine magnets as fuel...little spark -> lots of energy due to fuel explosion .. overunity too? NO.. just energy released from the fuel thanks to the little spark... magnets = fuel ... period..
I've heard that a lot , do you have a study where they used a magnet until it died to prove that fact ?
I'm sure they will eventually loose their charge but how many days does it take there is surely some scientist that did experiment and can put a lifetime in days/month/year on that claim ....
-
after searching a bit i couldnt find a better link than this one but it still put some indication about a magnetic hip being able to last 1,000 year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-510987/The-new-magnetic-hip-lifetime.html
if it is claimed a magnet can hold the weigth of a person for 1,000 year im pretty sure it can turn around for the same amount of time...
-
Darn! I guess solar energy is out then too as it is predicted that the sun will burn out in a few more million years so, I guess no free energy there either.
I am excited about this video although I agree with the folks that suggested in a nice way that better instrumentation be used for measurement of input and output before a final declaration is confirmed. I too have been fascinated by the Bedini motors for a long time now and I hope this fellow has finally done it. We will see.
Bill
-
I have been meaning to say this for a long time but was looking for the right time to do so.
I guess this is as good a time as any.
Over and over again we hear people say "close the loop" or "have it run it's self".
There are laws of physics that can prevent that from working.
Conflicts with the laws of electronics.
Now here is what I have been meaning to say and it applies to all over unity devices:
Build 2 copies of the device that are as close to exact as possible.
Then use the output from device #1 to run device #2. (Condition the output so it works)
If you have over unity device #2 must put out even more OU power then device #1 did.
This will remove any doubt that you have achieved Over Unity.
And also the laws of physics won't prevent you from using the output of #2 to run #1.
If #1 can run #2 then #2 has to be able to run #1, that is just plane logic.
Also building 2 copies will prove the other most important point;
That the effect can be duplicated.
So no more saying that something strange happened to the device and it doesn't work anymore.
Also as you build device #2 you can use device #1 as a reference to make sure you build it right.
I find it so strange that all those who claim to have build an OU device haven't thought of this simple solution.
I can understand if the device costs thousands of dollars and one just doesn't have the money to build a duplicate.
But every idea on this forum I have seen to date would cost less then $1000 to replicate for the one that build the first model.
Many can be replicated for less then $200. So cost isn't a factor here.
The biggest cost is development of the concept into a working model because many test models are built.
But once you have a working model, then replication is very cheap.
And if you need even more proof, then build 3 or more of them and have the output of one running the other.
Eventually you should get so much Over Unity that no one will be able to question it again.
I hope all on this forum get to read this and give it some real thought, and stop saying "get the thing to run it's self"
That is the wrong approach!
"Get the thing to run a copy of itself!!!!"
That is the right approach.
I think the term is "decoupling" you must decouple the input from the output, and using 2 units will accomplish this.
I chose to place this here because the Bedini motor is a perfect candidate for this.
If you have a working OU version of it then building a copy of it is fairly cheap and easy to do.
-
AbbaRue--
Well, that or just have the thing flip-flop charging cap banks and run the motor off the flip-flopped banks.
-
Hi Stefan
In the video responses skycollection mentioned to you that "here is iportant to see that lindermann circuit and my mechanical switching were important in this project"
Would it be possible to get skycollection to send us a schematic?
I also noticed that the coil core was not using any ferrite and seems to be empty.
Is this a Lindermann or Bedini circuit?
Regards,
Paul
-
Hi!
Thanks everybody!
If it is a lindemann circuit, this is a lindemann circuit:
Jesus
-
Hi nievesoliveras,
Thanks for the reply and the schematic of the lindemann attraction motor.
If you look between 1:00 to 1:50 in the video, one can see that there's no Iron anywhere in the setup :o not even inside the single wire coil.
This is why I asked Stefan the question of this setup being Bedini or Lindemann circuit cause in the video it's tagged as Lindemann.
I'd really like to see the circuit ;D Is it even a Bedini circuit ???
Regards,
Paul
-
Hi!
Thanks everybody!
If it is a lindemann circuit, this is a lindemann circuit:
Jesus
It never ceases to amaze me how something that's been around for nearly a century, and known as a variable reluctance motor, can be constructed by
someone (or represented in schematic form) and made to look as if it is their own new idea, by putting a different name on it (their own name for instance).
An X rotor - No back-emf - Big deal.
No back emf simply results in higher current usage at all levels of loading, from zero loading to rotor stall (overloading). The only advantage that a variable reluctance motor has over other motors is the relative level of mechanical torque available at both zero and full rpm. The torque available at high RPM only exists at the level it does because there is no back emf to reduce current consumption as is the case for example with a PM DC motor running at high RPM
Most of the very first reluctance motor designs comprised an X shaped rotor, with anything from 1 to N number of coils and attraction points.
Nothing new in Lindemanns circuit except maybe solid state switching, where the original century old variable reluctance motors used mechanical commutator switching.
Many so called inventors rely on the ignorance of the masses to push ideas which are not only plagiarised, but are also common knowledge to those who have an electrical background.
The diode return path to an external battery for charging (as shown in the circuit) is making use of the collapsing emf from the coils during the supply pulse turn off time. Also nothing new or startling about that. In fact the recycling of collapsing emf takes place in all well designed PWM motor controlling systems, but instead of charging another battery, the energy is usually looped back to the drive coil circuit to extend the drive pulse time and provide additonal mechanical torque.
Cheers
-
@Group,
I have looked at the video and I think his motor looks something like the attached drawing.
The mechanical switch uses carbon and copper. The switching action is done by gluing
a small Neo magnet to the switch. The switch reach can be adjusted with a bolt.
Groundloop.
-
i see somthing than can be changed to add more to the out put or less on the input ;)
put a cap across the input side....
what this will do is charge from the re when the power is switched from the source ;)
thus decreasing input .... big time
that dwg looks almost like my motor .... aside the non mechanical switching....
also try a reed switch ... when you do it right and in the rite place ... output increases and take the motor away 8) you dont need it anyways....
well all you need is a reed and and a coil and a battery just try it
you may be amazied then .... why not take it to the limit and build a pluse motor generator with out moveing parts .....
and then lets call it a TPU!!!!!
WAKE UP ALREADY....
ist
-
Hi!
I can see a problem with the switch, and it is that the magnets are not repeling but attracting. That will make the switch to open instead of closing.
Jesus
-
Hi!
More specifically, the improvements would be:
Jesus
-
@nievesoliveras,
Yes, I saw that I had got the litte magnet the wrong way but it was too late
to modify the drawing. This forum only let you modify your post for one hour.
Groundloop.
-
Hi!
@groundloop
I know it was just a mistake while drawing it.
@goat
These are snapshots of one of his earlier videos when he presented the lindemann circuit he was using on that occasion. I dont know if he is using the same circuit this time though.
Jesus
-
@nievesoliveras,
Thank you for posting the snapshots.
Well, nobody knows because he has not posted any drawings as far as I know.
Groundloop.