Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: Magnethos on February 03, 2009, 02:37:03 AM
-
I want to share with you a new OU effect that a guy discovered. Real free energy from the vacuum.
NRGfromthevacuum showed some videos about the negative resistance process to extract energy from the vacuum. He didn't replied to me, but I have found enought information to know how he did that.
My friend Armakuni2000 has succesfull replicated the experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TlrnyXKkZ0&feature=channel_page
He proves that he can get energy from the vacuum using a coil and a special configuration.
Some help is needed to develop this system because we are testing some different capacitors, different coil resistance, etc... Of course, armakuni is getting few energy from the vacuum. But I have heard that the actual 'record' is 600 Volts.
Collaboration is welcome ;D
-
This is the video similar to what you are referring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUS03yNl40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9irQJ6mivs
God bless
otits
-
The term "bifilar" is being improperly used here. By looking at the diagram and the setup in the videos, it is clear that only one wire is wound onto the core.
-
This is the video similar to what you are referring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUS03yNl40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9irQJ6mivs
God bless
otits
Yes, if you look at the schematic I posted in the last post and the schematic of NRGfromthevacuum, you will see that they are the same. NRG shows the negentropic effect and that effect is one of the biggest keys to achieve a free energy unit. Of course, the Armakuni's video is the first one and he needs to improve the system. But he has succesfull replicated the effect. Our goal now is get more energy. He is working on the project.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=channel_page&v=pGEGovqWqGU
The term "bifilar" is being improperly used here. By looking at the diagram and the setup in the videos, it is clear that only one wire is wound onto the core.
Yes, if you look at the star of the video, you can see that Armakuni has the detailed schematic I have posted in this thread. He only wanted to experiment with the circuit, but I have said him that he needs to use the same schematics as I said to him. He will use in the next experiments, the positive splitting and maybe the bifilar coil.
-
Sir
could we use this one to power up a tpu?
God bless
otits
-
Sir
could we use this one to power up a tpu?
God bless
otits
If we develop this system, then we could use this to power the entire world!
-
wow amazing!
i am now copying the pic................... ;D
god bless ;)
otits
-
Wow,
Stark now has shown,
that the capacitance is always charged up to almost the same voltage,
although he changed the coil or the capacitor....
So if we now make the caps bigger and bigger,
we will have more and more energy out from the same
small pulsing input.
Have a look at his latest videos here:
(newest first)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XG3Ij-wXMo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TlrnyXKkZ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGEGovqWqGU
-
Okay, I edited the above diagram now for the
easier to get effect of charging up the capacitor with
excess energy.
I tried it myself already with just an aircore coil,
but it did not work.
user Stark confirmed, that it must have an iron or
ferrite core and I will try it tommorow,
when I have located my other coils and transformers.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Hi,
I suspect what is happening with this experiment is BEMF charging of the cap at probably 10 times the battery voltage.
This is because of the switch is suffering from "bounce".
The clips are struck together and this charges the cap to the battery voltage or below it. Then as the clips make-break-make contact the coils BEMF flows in reverse through the battery into the coil, less the battery voltage. But because of the high voltage BEMF it can charge the cap very fast.
I think that the 12V battery needs to be replaced by another cap charged to 12v, then you can see how much charge is transfered into the first cap and how much is lost from the second cap.
Proper science experiment not guess work.
Regards
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I tend to agree with you because if the contact were a definite make-brake only and no any further 'bounce' to make another contact for the already appearing flyback pulse from the first brake then there would be not much possibility for the higher pulse for entering the capacitor through the air to charge it further up.
A small or certain amount of charge may still go into the capacitor via the spark (plasma) if such is created at the break moment, spark is able to conduct; if this is the case, then this phenomena could not be repeted by solid state switch but by a mechanical one.
Your suggestion of using capacitor to replace the battery is also a good idea.
rgds, Gyula
-
Yes, it will probably only work with mechanical switching.
The strange thing is,
that different coils and different uF caps always show almost the same voltage like
26 Volts charge from a 12 Volts battery source...
So the energy stored in the capacitor seems not to be related of the
energy transfered from the battery into the coil.
So it seems there comes more energy out than the stored magnetic energy of thecoil
could ever deliver..
We need some more people to verify this.
Regards, Stefan.
-
The original theory explains that when you short the wires together, the entropy (disorder in the virtual particle flux of the vacuum) reverses. The entropy reversion (negentropy) means energy creation.
The effect that sparks shows is only possible when you short the wires very fast, because if the current saturates the circuit after that little time, the effect is not possible. For that reason the timing time is very important. If you short the wires slowly you can't get the effect.
So, when you short all wires together, very fast... there is only pure voltage in the circuit and the circuit components (source, resistance and collector) are activated and it's possible a negentropic effect (energy from the vacuum). For that reason anyone can get more output than input.
-
Yes, it will probably only work with mechanical switching.
The strange thing is,
that different coils and different uF caps always show almost the same voltage like
26 Volts charge from a 12 Volts battery source...
So the energy stored in the capacitor seems not to be related of the
energy transfered from the battery into the coil.
So it seems there comes more energy out than the stored magnetic energy of thecoil
could ever deliver..
We need some more people to verify this.
Regards, Stefan.
The original author (NRGfromthevacuum) can get up to 600 Volts. He doesn't shows that big amount energy on his videos, but I know that. The source he used to get the 600 Volts were 2 batteries (2 x 12 Volts). I have emailed him a lot of times, but he doesn't reply to my messages.
There is other effect where you can see a similar effect, maybe we can merge the 2 effects together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RQ6tIgoiJ8&feature=channel
If anyone merge the 2 experiments, he will have a very powerfull energy amplificator. I mean, with the experiment of this thread we can get more voltage when we short the wires, but if we add this second experiment (the experiment of the video) in each short, we can add more and more voltage into the cap.
So, if we merge the 2 experiment, we would have:
First switch: 26 Volts
Second switch: 52 Volts...
Each short is 1 msec.
I said to Armakuni about using a voltage multiplier, I mean, connect the battery to a voltage multiplier circuit, and then short the wires using that high-voltage circuit as a "source"
NOTE: maybe we could replace the battery and use an antenna to get voltage from the Earth Potential.
-
This is other possibility, add capacitors in parallel. Maybe it's possible to increase the effect adding more caps. In the other side, we will have more capacitance.
I think the advanced version could be:
1. Add a voltage multiplier
2. Add capacitors in parallel
3. Add the gotoluc circuit to the system
4. Replace the Battery and use an antenna
Gotoluc's videos: In order (old to new)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RQ6tIgoiJ8&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWwFxNZZxc&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5j6fe8rXc&feature=channel_page
-
1) The multimeter should be replaced with a scope. I reckon there is indeed a lot of "bounce" in this setup.
2) I'd recommend that a proper switch, (perhaps a SCR or isolated rotary contact), be installed before trying the experiment with a whole bunch of caps in parallel, unless you think you might enjoy a potentially lethal shock. Remember to short-out the array while you aren't using it -- the caps can accumulate a full charge if left alone and unshorted.
good luck and for heaven's sake be careful.
-
Energy in a capacitor = 1/2 x C(farrads) x V^2
E = 0.5 x 0.005 x 20 x 20
E = 1 joule
OK so to charge a capacitor of 5000uF to 20V requires 1 joule of energy.
So therefore 1 joule = 1 watt for 1 second.
To achieve it in a millisecond needs 1Kw for 1 mSec, quite a high power density - a scope should be able to show the real duration of charging.
So if you can charge a 5000uF cap to 20V you can discharge this at a constant voltage across a resistor of 1V at 1Amp for 1 second or 10 milliamps for 100 seconds.
Either way I think a scope shot of the cap and coil is required to check the voltage surges.
Now if this can be applied to an ultra-capacitor of say 40KWHrs capacity, now that would be something.
If I get time this evening I will try and scope this.
Regards
Rob
-
Interesting setup Magnetos :)
As for the "splitting the positive" element, that reminds me of Grey's
circuits where he "split the positive" and managed to produce apparent OU...
Is this perhaps a variation on the same theme?
Also, do we or don't we need to use a bifilar coil in this?
Regards,
Koen
-
so this is basically a car coil type thing but with poor points,if the volts increase is it more power??I think not, unless there is amps then OK watts
-
so this is basically a car coil type thing but with poor points,if the volts increase is it more power??I think not,
With only voltage and capacitance there is no need to know the current to calculate energy.
-
Interesting setup Magnetos :)
As for the "splitting the positive" element, that reminds me of Grey's
circuits where he "split the positive" and managed to produce apparent OU...
Is this perhaps a variation on the same theme?
Also, do we or don't we need to use a bifilar coil in this?
Regards,
Koen
The original experiment is using a Bifilar coil and the positive split. Armakuni his performing the experiment with a monofilar coil and without splitting the positive. I have repeated him a lot of times about using the bifilar and the positive split. I hope he uses that configuration in the next videos. One of the big keys is use a bifilar coil. Maybe Armakuni cannot get good results for the same reason. He needs to use the exact schematics. Once he has tested the exact experiment, then we will can improve it. But he is getting 26 Volts from a 12 Volts battery.
Yeah, Ev Gray used that technique. Some people has told me that splitting the positive, a battery acts as a diode. (¿?)
-
Does anybody know, how the Bifilar coil was really connected ?
Was it wired like a real Bifilar coil which supresses the magnetic field in a Bifilar coil ?
Or was it just wired 2 coils in parallel , so we get the half of total inductance ?
Or was it wired like 2 bucking coils, so that each coil was canceling the other magnet field,
but each coil was wound seperate onto the core ?
Lots of possibilities here...
Regards, Stefan.
-
Does anybody know, how the Bifilar coil was really connected ?
Was it wired like a real Bifilar coil which supresses the magnetic field in a Bifilar coil ?
Or was it just wired 2 coils in parallel , so we get the half of total inductance ?
Or was it wired like 2 bucking coils, so that each coil was canceling the other magnet field,
but each coil was wound seperate onto the core ?
Lots of possibilities here...
Regards, Stefan.
A guy said me this:
Hi Magnethos,
Essentially a bifilar coil is pretty much a double wound coil. Instead of using one wire you use two wires of similar or slightly different thickness and wound it around a spool.
There are many techniques that will enhance the effectiveness but lets stick to the basics for now.
Imagine winding a single wire coil around an empty fishing line spool. When you are finished you are left with two wires. The end that you started with and the end that you finished with.
Now imagine winding two wires at the same time around another spool. At the end you are left with 4 wires, two wires you started with and two that you ended with.
There are some nice videos on YouTube that show you exactly how to wind bifilar coils. Actually thats how I started out.
Now in NRG's circuit diagram he shows a bifilar coil but with only two wires which is actually 4 wire ends joined into 2 groups making two wires.
I hope that makes sense.
For now consider winding the bifilar coil first. My first coil I still use. Its approximately 300-350 turns around an emtpy fishing line spool. I used 23 and 26 gage wire to wind it.
Bifilar Secret:
I got stuck on the bifilar coil wiring as NRG only shows two wires leaving the coil and I was expecting four. The 'secret' I eventually discovered was to combine the four bifilar wires into 2 wires by knotting them together
Source: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2601-capacitor-charging.html
If anyone read the comments on that thread, you can read the comment that a guy got 125 Volts from 2x12 Volts. 100 Extra Volts. :)
-
Thinking aloud:
As everyone knows, bifilar can mean two or more strands of wire wound together.
But it can also mean the ends are swapped (in the case of 2 strands like Stefan said to counter a magnetic field being produced in the core).
OK, theory on the bifilar being better is (possibly) down to the "skin" effect in the coil of such a short "bouncy" pulse.
http://www.bcae1.com/trnsfrmr.htm
Three wires shorted creating a higher voltage - I suspect that the battery is dropped across the coil directly and much more current is able to flow creating a much higher BEMF so when the contacts break this jumps the gap and charges the cap. Downside here is that it will short the cap out before it charges, so any charge already in the cap will be lost as heat in the wire.
Regards
Rob
-
There are a lot of possible theories, but I think that when we use the bifilar coil, the magnetic field is cancelled as Stefan says. So, in the bifilar coil only pure potential (longitudinal, scalar) energy flows.
When anyone use the longitudinal energy (pure potential, electrostatic, scalar, torsion waves, radiant energy, negative electricity... a lot of names for the same energy) the characteristics of the components are opposite. A positive resistor is a negative resistor, a battery is a diode... etc...
So, it's critic to use a bifilar coil and not a monofilar coil.
-
It seems, Mike (Youtube user: NRGFromTheVacuum) is just putting the 2 coils in
parallel, so the magnetic field is not canceled inside of them.
I just got this email from him:
Hi Stefan,
I had no idea that someone was discussing my setup outside of You Tube. I have shown it in person to a nuclear physicist and a material scientist. They both agreed there was something "unconventional" going on, but could not agree on what. I told them,
"there needs to be less speculation, and more experimentation. That is the only way to agree on what your seeing."
It's great to know some people out there actually care about science, instead of just shrugging experimental evidence off like it never even happened. Build it and then build it again, replicate it until people listen.
My bifilar coil is: 4.7 Ohms of #23 & #26 wire wrapped around a 3.5" x 1" core. (The coil is wired in parallel)
(Its the same coil that John Bedini uses for his SSG kits)
I would love to visit your website and discuss more possibility's and of course more details about my experiments.
Best Regards,
My name is Mike, I'm a laser engineer.
-
I take it you have invited Mike to the forum Stefan.
It would be great to have him chip in.
Hans von Lieven
-
Why the endless confusion with collecting a spark on a capacitor?
Wasn't captainpecan's 84 pages enough?
POWER IN MUST BE MEASURED!
And no where is that done!
Just because you are showing a larger voltage than the source means nothing.
What is a spark? HIGH VOLTAGE!
So what do you get on a capacitor capturing that spark? HIGH VOLTAGE!
So let's see:
Power in:
12v source into a 4.7 ohm coil
I=V/R
12V/4.7Ohm = 2.553 amps
12V x 2.553A = 30.396 watts
30.396W x .1 seconds = 3.0396 wattseconds (W/S) or joules (J)
Even say you could pulse it in .01 seconds (1 hundredth of a second....doubtful... and a pulse of 1 microsecond - that's one millionth of a second - as listed on one of the diagrams is just silly thinking)
30.396W x .01 seconds = .30396 J or W/S
Power collected:
26V on a 30uF capacitor
.5(26x26x.000030) = 0.01014 J or W/S
So IF you could actually pulse it at .01 seconds (.1 would be more like it)
Power in: .30396 J
Power out: .01014 J
Efficiency: 3.33%
Wasted power: 96.66 %
And that's being generous........
It's probably more like:
Power in (.1 second): 3.0396 J
Power out : .01014 J
Efficiency: .333%
Wasted power: 99.66%
-
@ captainhook
Sir mathematicaly you are correct but if we make sudden discharge of that cap to a coil, i think it will be converted into huge energy.
i think from that mathematic is not anymore a reality.
N.tesla, bearden.
-
This reminds me of the joule thief. Bifilar wire, ferrite core, pulsing the DC...
I recommend Magnethos check out the thread called ''Jule thief''. Its lots of fun mate ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peOiMKL7zeI
It may not be free energy, but it is damn cheap, whatever it is!
-
Why the endless confusion with collecting a spark on a capacitor?
Wasn't captainpecan's 84 pages enough?
POWER IN MUST BE MEASURED!
And no where is that done!
Just because you are showing a larger voltage than the source means nothing.
What is a spark? HIGH VOLTAGE!
So what do you get on a capacitor capturing that spark? HIGH VOLTAGE!
So let's see:
Power in:
12v source into a 4.7 ohm coil
I=V/R
12V/4.7Ohm = 2.553 amps
12V x 2.553A = 30.396 watts
30.396W x .1 seconds = 3.0396 wattseconds (W/S) or joules (J)
Even say you could pulse it in .01 seconds (1 hundredth of a second....doubtful... and a pulse of 1 microsecond - that's one millionth of a second - as listed on one of the diagrams is just silly thinking)
30.396W x .01 seconds = .30396 J or W/S
Power collected:
26V on a 30uF capacitor
.5(26x26x.000030) = 0.01014 J or W/S
So IF you could actually pulse it at .01 seconds (.1 would be more like it)
Power in: .30396 J
Power out: .01014 J
Efficiency: 3.33%
Wasted power: 96.66 %
And that's being generous........
It's probably more like:
Power in (.1 second): 3.0396 J
Power out : .01014 J
Efficiency: .333%
Wasted power: 99.66%
You are not understanding the principle behind this experiment.
Wenn he first hit the two conductors without coil, then the source (the battery) was directly connected to capacitor, so there was low ohmic resistence, it was nothing more than a short circuit and the capacitors voltage climbed as high as the voltage of the battery:
So power collected on capacitor was
E = 0,5 x 12 V x 12V x 30 uF
= 0,00216 J or Ws
Then he connected the coil of 4,7 Ohm and hit again the two conductors.
In this case, because of inductive reactance and added 4,7 ohmic resistance the current must be lower (I = U / R).
The 12 Volt of the source stays the same and although the current is lower because of higher impedance, in the end the voltage on capacitor is higher and we have a gain in energy...
It is true overunity and it is exactly that what Tom Bearden said...
With the high inductive coil, he only wants to transfer the voltage without current. In every high inductance the current is nearly zero at the moment of switching. When you switch to slow, then the current will rise and the overunity effect is gone because the source will depleted.
kind regards
-
You are not understanding the principle behind this experiment.
The 'experiment' is hopelessly flawed, the observations and measurements are severely lacking and the conclusions drawn are completely wrong.
And it's comparing apples to oranges.
The first part has nothing to do with the second. So to draw conclusion by comparing the two results is impossible and irrelevant.
It is as simple as this:
Take the second part of the - 'experiment'.
1. Power in: how many joules are drawn from the battery?
2. Power out: how many joules are collected on the capacitor?
3. Net loss/gain: 1 minus 2
And since no one ever bothered to measure/calculate the power in, I provided a reasonable calculation so that you might understand what was happening and how and where it all was wrong.....
-
@ captainhook
Sir mathematicaly you are correct but if we make sudden discharge of that cap to a coil, i think it will be converted into huge energy.
i think from that mathematic is not anymore a reality.
N.tesla, bearden.
Dream on...
o yeah
It is on dream why tesla made most of his inventions into reality. even bearden maybe is a dreamer next me ha ha ha;D :P
-
The 'experiment' is hopelessly flawed, the observations and measurements are severely lacking and the conclusions drawn are completely wrong.
And it's comparing apples to oranges.
The first part has nothing to do with the second. So to draw conclusion by comparing the two results is impossible and irrelevant.
It is as simple as this:
Take the second part of the - 'experiment'.
1. Power in: how many joules are drawn from the battery?
2. Power out: how many joules are collected on the capacitor?
3. Net loss/gain: 1 minus 2
And since no one ever bothered to measure/calculate the power in, I provided a reasonable calculation so that you might understand what was happening and how and where it all was wrong.....
Do you then mean, that this is a rather more efficienter way to charge a cap than overunity ?
Nevertheless he has more energy in his cap, with same voltage reading of the source and lower current through ohmic resistance and induvtive reactance. ok agreed, it is still no proof for overunity...
-
Hello everyone,
Overunity is a word which is severely misunderstood.
When we talk about electrical overunity many people use to their common EE teachings say you need to measure watts in & watts out. However this thinking is flawed from the very beginning because their only taught to deal with electron current.
What must be understood in my particular experiment is the battery's energy and the energy which ends up in the capacitor, are completely different! The battery contains electrons which when caused to flow, generate heat, fall victim to entropy, and exhibit a positive curve in gravity. The capacitor contains, radiant energy, negative energy, Dirac-sea-holes, negative mass-energy electrons, dark energy, whatever you want to call it, and when caused to interact with matter, generates negative probability's, negative entropy, and exhibits a negative curve in gravity. The two types of energy must be understood before you can understand anything going on in the circuit.
If I charge one capacitor with electrons, and the other with Dirac-sea-holes. The one with Dirac-sea-holes will weigh less than the one with electrons.
In a future video, I will show this...
So if we want to properly measure the electrical overunity we must measure the input energy in watts, joules, or coulombs through the one load. Then instead of measuring the output watts, joules, or coulombs through one load. Use multiple loads in series with each another, each with its own capture circuit and storage capacitor. Then take the total energy from each storage capacitor add it up and compare.
-
Hi NRGfromthevacuum,
great new results from your new 2 videos !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhS4TxP29mM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
In the last one one can see:
Great results, you are well overunity with these measurements.
If the chargeup cap in the background is 30 uF,
then in one test, where the blue cap had 23 Volts
you charged up the 30 uF cap to 373 Volts at minute 1:47 and this is an energy of about 2 .08 Wattseconds( Joules).
Now the blue cap lost at this moment just about 1 Volt, so 22 Volts were left in the cap.
When I did not make any calculation error the
blue cap went from 1.98 Wattseconds to 1.81 Wattseconds, so it just lost only 0.17 Wattseconds.
So you have a COP of:
2.08 Joules output / 0.17 Joules input = about 12 !
Great results !
Regards, Stefan.
-
Well, Just try to see, how much voltage your blue cap increases, if you put your charge from the 30uF cap into the blue cap!
If the blue cap charges up higher as the starting voltage you have shown, that it indeed works OU !
Regards, Stefan.
-
Well it sure is nice to see someone measuring input!
And some nice test equipment too.
And using a capacitor as the input rather than a battery is most excellent.
Stefan:
I think NRG is a different person than the first video post.
And as to the calculations you posted - I'm assuming this portion of the test was an outlyer (#3), a mistake or something. He didn't comment on it and quickly reset it to try again. And the results are in no way similar to the other ones.
Attached is a screenshot of an excel spreadsheet listing the test results.
The 4th test show 110% output over input....
The question is: what size capacitor is the capture capacitor? He says on the first video he's using a 30uF cap, but doesn't say on the second. Sure look huge for 30uF - but guess he says they are 4000V?
And why such a wide range of results?
-
Looking closer:
Test #3 is:
-37.38 volts?
So #3 should be disregarded. It was really just a preparation for test #4 (or #3 if you now relabel)
But still, #4 apparantly shows a 10% gain.... hmmm, wonder why....
Is the coil still hooked up in these tests?
And is the coil still hooked up to the battery?
And the pulse time of #4 was much shorter than #1 and #2 as evidenced by the smaller power input.
(1/2 the pulse as test #1)
P.S. It would be nice to have a wider view so as to see how the pulses are done and what leads are being used.
I see the yellow lead from the capacitor...
And the green lead.. isn't that from the battery?
etc. etc.
-
And until further information is provided by NRG:
Something is very inconsistent.
1. Why the -37 volts? A pulse from the battery of opposite polarity than the input capacitor?
2. A shorter pulse indicates a greater efficiency. However, test #2 was a shorter pulse than #1 and shows a lower efficiency.
These two things (and the inability to see the whole experiment) indicate to me something is screwy..
-
I am remembering doing some tests some years ago, where I taped a coil to a charged up 10.000 uF electrolyte cap and wondered, when I drew this way a good fast spark during a fast tap, that the voltage of the cap did not decrease much. I had reported this already somewhere over here in the forum, but I am now on the PDA and cant find it now. It really depends on the mechanical switching and how fast you do it and what kind of sparking is built up during the short contact.
Too bad I never measured it quantitatively at this time..
Regards, Stefan.
-
There is a big problem here. There are 2 kind of theories. Classical Electro Magnetic (CEM) and the 'alternative' (but true) theories of Lindemann, Bedini and others.
If people look at this technique thinking about the CEM, they will say this is impossible.
But if we open our mind to the true theory, then this tecnique is an infinite source of energy. As NRG says, we can't look for 'overunity devices' using Classical EM theory.
-
I think the next device can show free energy effect:
The theory.
1. Anyonce can replace the battery and use other source to get potential (voltage). My idea is to build an antenna to tap potential from the Earth's.
Schematic: Free energy from thin air.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/915226/free_electricity_from_thin_air/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYYysBEwA6w
* We can add as much antennas we need. Maybe using 2 or 3 we can get 24 Volts. Amperage isn't important. We only need voltage. NRG used a capacitor instead of a battery for input. So, we can use an antenna instead of a battery.
2. Automatic switching
Every time we recharge a cap, the discharge time depends on the device. If the device need 1000 Watts, then the capacitor charge will be lost faster that if we want to run a 50 Watts device using the same cap. So, the automatic switching Switchs on/off constantly to recharge the caps. If the device we have connected to the output needs more power, then the switching time will be faster because we need to draw more power.
Some days ago I built a Hulda Clark zapper. That device is a Pulsed DC, Square Wave circuit of 40 Khz.
1 second / 40,000 Hertz = 0,000025 secs, switching time.
3. Capacitor Bank (in parallel)
Capacitors in parallel increase the capacitance of the circuit. We can use 250 Volts (for Europe) capacitors. if we put 10 (250 Volts @ 300 uF) we will have 250 Volts 3000 uF. It's good to use a capacitor bank because it's easiest with some caps instead of using only 1.
I think I have explained this ok, if you have any doubt, then ask me.
-
It would be nice to see a test of how far you can go with this, for example, how many caps in parallel (like above) can be charged using a single primary cap until depleted.
great work Mr NRG ;D
-
Hello Honoured Profiles and The Honoured Administrator of This The Honourable OU-Forum !
Well, NOW a quite otherwise Idea is introduced to be discussed per Replies to Replies;thanks about THIS opportunity to could discuss "some" about socalled "counter-EMF"/"H-Flux-changes-caused-EMF" , and else , related to a socalled "Selfinductance" ....the Original Topic (Page 1) + a later on co-Topic (to clearerly emphasize about the Observed Circumstance) :
MOST BRIEFLY :
when the Accumulator is "switched"-on to begin charge-UP the Condenser , so also "flows" a "short-while" electrical current through the Coil ; if the "switch-on->switch-off"-period is "made" "short-time" compared to the socalled "Time-Constant"-of-the-Condenser-with-Selfinductance-in-series and if per "Fingers-manual-let-wire-ends-connect-on->off"touch just most quickly a connection is made....
THEN the H-flux having been "built-up"-"in"-THe-Coil´s-internal-Area HAS TO BEE ABRUPTLY QUICK CHANGED TO "NIL-H-flux" causing a very quickly CO-original-electrical-currents-directions-"HiTensions"-"Pulse" ABLE to CHARGE the Condenser to several Hundreds volts (because of the Condenser´s fairly little capacitive value to the Coil´s Self-inductance´s fairly "large" value of some 10´s of milli-henries).......
A POSSIBLE SWITCHMODE-ACTING WITHOUT INVOLVING A "FLYBACK-DIODE" HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED DUE TO VERY QUICKLY ON-OFF CONNECTING THE WIRE-ENDS PER MANUAL ACTIONS (a little sparks-arc makes the low enough Air-Gaps-resistance for to enable the ONE-ACT-SwitchMOde-Step.......) !
If allthough the connection is made TOO "long" ON , then the Condenser is charged FURTHER up per
LC-serial-resonant acting , though THEN the L-current becomes at first "nill" , then will "go" CONTRA
"FLOWING" through Coil while DE-charging the Condenser......IT IS THUS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE SUITABLE SWITCH-ON-OFF-connections-time for PROPER Function....To Say : neither TOO quickly "short" nor TOO "long" for to obtain the "wanted" observed voltage-built-up in Condenser per one-step-action !
WKR & have Yourselves a nice Day !
And Thanks about Your All important Participations to THe Honourable Course of OU !
-
Just for informational purposes, that "energy from thin air" circuit
is in fact the "Tate Ambient Power Module" as described in detail,
incl patent, on the pages of http://www.rexresearch.com/tate/tate.htm
Not that that changes the fact that you can use it to get a little bit
of power from random radio waves of course.
But I like to call things by the name and not adopt some youtube users
self-invented video title instead. But that's just me. ;)
@Magnethos: I do not entirely follow how your three steps constitute a theory of free energy.
Can you please explain it a bit more?
So we use 1) a voltage source to 2) pulse charge capacitors and then 3) use a capacitor bank
to add the charges of many caps together....
I don't really see where the free energy part comes in...
Sure, if the voltage source is a free source, then obviously you could charge as many caps
as you like with it if the source can deliver that amount of charge.
But that will still only give as output exactly the amount of energy put in...
Or is your entire point that there are charges hat can be freely collected from the environment
and stored in caps, charges that do not need to come out of the wall socket or a battery...
... is that your point? I don't think so, I think your trying to point out something else, but
I am not sure. Hence the request for further explanation of your theory there. :)
regards,
Koen
-
@Koen1
I mean we can replace a battery and use an 'antenna'. The antenna has infinite potential, but the battery sometimes discharges its power. Of course, maybe you need years, but in the end the battery discharges.
So, we can use an antenna to get voltage. Then we use the switch circuit to switch on/off very fast (remember that the effect is higher while current doesn't saturates the circuit). One time we've drawed pure voltage throuth the circuit and the caps are charged. Then we can discharge the caps, using any device. A light bulb, a motor...
The free energy comes when we repeat this proces again and again. Look at the picture to get an idea. But the picture isn't the same schematic that I have posted. But the idea is:
1. Charge the caps
2. Discharge to a load
3. Repeat the process very fast.
Of course, we need to know if we can charge a capacitor bank at the same time. For that reason we need to perform some tests. But the theory is this.
-
Hi everyone,
I thought this picture was interesting because it shows both the input spike from the battery/capacitor and the input spike from the local vacuum.
The oscilloscope is set to 5 volts per division at 250ms.
-
Here is a Gif image I made from the video. It shows the current entering the coil. Then after the current leaves the coil, the energy ends up in the 30uF capacitor.
http://www.gifninja.com/Workspace/a699cce1-eb9f-4f73-8483-196c8a9229ae/output.gif
-
@Magnethos: Ok, thanks for running that by me again.
So what you're saying is that we can perform that fast-switching trick
and do what Bearden described in that example animation, but
contrary to what Bearden says we do not need to use a special
degenerate conductor with a long relaxation time to make it work?
As long as we just switch things fast enough, we should be able
to get out more than we put in.
Did I understand you correctly now?
Seems to me that this depends on what Bearden calls the steepness of the
potential gradient. That's the sharp rise in potential we see in that sawtooth wave.
Bearden repeatedly refers to such sharp gradients as "breaking the local symmetry",
which in his terminology results in "negative energy spikes". Which are of an energy
form that can be transduced into positive energy, and that can power our devices.
This theory seems to accord with the high potential spikes measured in Bedini's motors,
and it also seems to accord with that scope pic posted by NRGfromtheVacuum above.
So I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds interesting, it sounds like what Bearden has been
saying for years, it sounds like what Bedini manages to do, and in that it is fascinating.
If you have some more detailed schematics on the actual circuit needed to do this
extremely fast switching trick, so we can build it and see if we do indeed get more out than we put in,
then please post them? I for one would like to see them, and I suspect there's others that
would like to see them too. :)
Regards,
Koen
-
Hello Honoured Profiles and the Honoured Administrator of This The Honourable OU-Forum !
Thanks about the suggested OU-Ideas-Method in Topic (Page 1) ;
THOUGH I AM NOT TRYING TO DE-COURAGE ABOUT VARIOUS SUGGESTED OU-IDEAS-METHODS ,
FOR I SELF DO INTEND TO EN-COURAGE ABOUT RESEARCHINGS IN OU-METHODS ;
THUS I WILL NOT FURTHER INTERFERE TO THE "GOOD-MOODS"-REPLIES-CONTINUED-GOING-ON-DISCUSSIONS "here" per my "formal" Replies "pointes".........
THOUGH OF COURSE SUCH DISCUSSIONS HAVE TO BE MADE OF VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OF EVEN SUCH AN ELEMENTARY CIRCUIT AS SUGGESTED IN THE INTERESTING ORIGINAL TOPIC (PAGE 1)....................
so just this brief kind hinting Comment :
##The interesting for some further quite otherwise OU-Circumstances-Investigations suggested OU-Method in Topic (Page 1) is basical about THIS Functional Circumstance :
MIGHT SOMEHOW A "CONNECTIVE BREAK" INTO A GOING-ON LC-self-resonances-Circuit
"get" an UN-expected FAR-OF-MORE-Voltage-Built-Up-in-The-C-Condenser
than else per the Max-plus/Minus-Peaks-LC-Resonances-Voltages-in-condenser !!
Well-then.....
==>>TO CALCULATE "FREELY" on UN-specified NON-resistive-having ONLY-LC-resonances
actings
==>>TO CALCULATE ON THE SOCALLED "H-flux-in-through-a-Self-inductance´s-Windings-Inner-areas"-"EMFs"-of-"Time" -->> TO SAY : if suddenly "released" per a "sudden" Connective-BREAK
would THEN the PRESENT-TIME´s-H-flux-in-through-windings-in-SelfInductance could "yeild" a total "Equivalent" CHARGE-in-Condenser "seemingly"-having "MORE-or-LESS" compared to steady-going-on-LC-resonances-up/down-charging of Condenser.....!!
IF JUST A REGULAR COIL OF ONE "IN-SERIES-WOUND-LAYERS-Turns"-Topology is "used" , and IF "USED" is a regular Condenser of "NONE MEMORY-EFFECTS" nor "A-typical epsilon-r-layers" nor "NON-typical-Plates-topologies".....
THEN THE DIS-CONNECTION "FORMS" a fairly-low-impedant-arcings-sparking-"path"-in-Air.....though the PRESENT-TIME-L-selfinductance´s "H-flux-in-through-Turns-"-built-up-"UxI"-Works-Integral THEN just IS the Present-Time-for-DISconnection-being TOGETHER with the Present-time-being Condenser´s "Plate Charges-Voltage" JUST TOTALLING SUMMING UP TO A VOLTAGE being dependent of the Present Time´s Total UxI-products ==>> NOT as suggested in the Original interesting Topic´s (Page 1)´s Ideas-Method:"sudden" MUCH-more-VOLTAGES-building-ups in Condenser because of "DISconnections-Break" !!
(Kind Hint about : the Manually done "work" for to DISconnect in-Itself does NOT "do" a "Work" INTO the LC-Resonances for to should could "make" a sudden-more-per-DISconnection-"yeilded"-MUCH-MORE-Voltages-on-Condenser....for JUDST a transfer of DISconnections-SelfInductance´s SELF-H-flux-to-Turns-Charge-Equivalent as TRANSFERED to the condenser´s Charge "VERY SUDDENLY FAST BECAUSE OF DISconnection....!!)
==>> THOUGH A QUITE OTHWERWISE CIRCUMSTANCE IF THEN INCLUDED-"SOME"
ABOUT" L-MUTUAL-Separate-Windings ALSO is most briefly mentioned in THe Original Topic (Page 1) AND THEN : if L-more windings-mutualities are "about"/being also "present", then with kind formal References to Technics of socalled SwitchMode-Layouts/Designs with TRANSFORMERS !!
WKR & thanks about this re-freshments-of-Basical-Electro-Technics/Electronics-Theses-Topics-Ideas-Method & have Yourselves a nice Day and many interesting Discussions about such Electrical Networks in Aspects also of otherwise Circumstances than intended OU-actions !
And my Thanks about Your All Participations in The Honourable Course of OU !
For You All do a needed hardlabored Deed for to gain more Knowledges to Mankind !
-
@Koen1
Yes, performing a fast-switching we can collect "extra" energy, from the vacuum. The theory I know is, when we switch very fast, there is only pure potential (voltage) on the circuit. Current needs some time to saturate the circuit, but voltage appears in the circuit at an infinite speed. So, if we switch fast, then pure voltage is in the circuit and that pure voltage "activates" the circuit and that activation produces a Negentropy process (extracting energy from the local vacuum).
If we switch slowly, current saturates the circuit and then the effect is not possible. The part I don't understand is why NRG can get that effect using copper wire. In copper, the relaxation time is extremely fast (0.00000000000000000015 secs), so that means in 0.000000000000000000015 secs current saturates the circuit. So, in theory, the effect would not be possible. But NRG and Armakuni demonstrates that the effect is possible using copper wire as a conductor. I don't understand that part, because I thought that we need Al-Fe wire, but... not. Using copper we can also get the same effect. I don't understand why. Maybe NRG can explains us a bit about this.
In theory, the energy that we store in the caps using this technique is the Radiant electricity (also known as cold, negative, etc...) but I think we can run the devices using that uncommon kind of energy.
Maybe the key is in the bifilar coil? Some modification in the bifilar coil affects to the relaxation time constant? I don't know..
I have heard something about breaking the local symmetry. I remember that I discussed in other thread a theory about symmetry and energy. And the final idea was, the energy is an assymetrical parameter or something similar, I don't remember exactly. But NRG has shown something about the "negative energy spikes". If you look at his last picture of the scope, you can see the picture is inversed.
He explains that the energy coming from the battery and the energy we collect in the caps are different. The energy we use from the batteries is "common electricity" that generates heat, produces entropy (energy scattering due to a disorded of the information/potential) and exhibits a positive curve in gravity.
The energy we collect in the caps is other kind of energy. That energy is known as radiant energy, cold electricity, negative electricity, etc... it is known by a lot of names. This energy produces negative entropy (information order, energy absorbtion from the vacuum), and exhibits a negative curve in gravity.
I think this energy is also known as longitudinal electricity, and it has different properties. A positive resistances is a negative resistance, it runs on high voltage low current, etc... I'm not sure about this, but If anyone can correct this, correct it.
I read somewhere that Tesla used a special bifilar coil to Inhibit the current. So, Tesla can draw pure potential using his special bifilar coil, instead using the fast switch technique. But both techniques are ok.
About the fast-switch circuit I can post the original one. But the original one needs a 9 Volt battery and the ouput is Square Wave, 30 KHz, Positive offset, 7 or 8 Volts. So, it needs some modifications, but you can get an idea to build your own frequency generator, automatic switch... call it as you want.
http://keelynet.com/biology/zapper.htm
NOTE: You need to modify the circuit to adadt it to your project. But I think if you modify the circuit you can get an automatic and very fast switch. But if you have a better device, then post it. I remember ZeroPoint in youtube posted a circuit to get pure potential from the battery. He deleted the videos, but I have a copy of each video in my hard disk. He said me something about the 555 IC, and the hulda clark need the 555 too. So... I think the Hulda Clark zapper can work (with some modifications)
-
Hi everyone,
I thought this picture was interesting because it shows both the input spike from the battery/capacitor and the input spike from the local vacuum.
The oscilloscope is set to 5 volts per division at 250ms.
@ NRGFromTheVacuum
The blue-marked 200 volts could also be the bemf of the coil or am I confounding things here ?
-
Is the scopeshot measured over the output cap?
I believe what innovationstation did whit his neo zapper was a similar accomplishment: he used neodymium magnets instead of the plate, but he never put in a known energy quantity.
-
Here you have the videos I talked about.
http://www.mediafire.com/?oe2gojocmdz (http://www.mediafire.com/?oe2gojocmdz)
A guy from the youtube shows how to get pure voltage using a circuit.
NOTE: The original videos are deleted in youtube. But I made a copy before. ;D
Maybe someone will have an idea to merge the NRGfromthevacuum circuit and the circuit on the video. The idea is the circuit of these videos shows how anyone can get pure voltage from a battery (withouth switching???). Then we can use this circuit and the NRGfromthevacuum to draw pure potential (Voltage) throught the circuit and then amplify the energy and charge the caps using the NRG circuit.
-
Dear Overunity Seekers !
Maybe nobody wants to realize it - but capacitors - like any other electrical components - and everything else on earth - are not perfect.
If you shorten an almost empty battery - you see how the voltage recovers after removing the short-circuit bridge.
Why ?
Because the battery acts as an infinite amount of elementary batteries - which are partly dead (if empty) or not - which can be seen from the outside that the "internal resistance" - thats an "ideal" approach increases.
BTW its really very difficult to discharge a battery to almost "0" - unless u shorten it for a very long periode.
Similar issues apply to most of capacitors - in higher or lower degreee.
HV caps are well known for these effects.
If you short-circuit them - they are not empty. Internal charge arranges in a way that there is no voltage at the connections.
Its like a bottle with some liquid you cannot empty completly.
BTW: Discharged is not the "lowest" internal energy state of these caps. They tend to increase their "outside" voltage to achieve internal lowest energy state again.
Well short circuit again - same thing - can do that ad infinitum.
This is even supported by the very low leakage current of HV caps.
People who design high precision integrators for very sensible equippement know that.
There are some types of caps which shows very less of that effect - mks types for example.
Now you can flame me to death.
rgds.
-
No need for flaming, just need to experimentally rule this out.
load test maybe, or energy amplification (which is the goal of OU), to minimize the significance of what you talk about.
thanks for the vids magnethos
-
@ NRGFromTheVacuum
The blue-marked 200 volts could also be the bemf of the coil or am I confounding things here ?
The BEMF is always measured below the input voltage.
I'm at work right now, but I will try and post a pic of the BEMF spike later.
-
The BEMF is always measured below the input voltage.
I'm at work right now, but I will try and post a pic of the BEMF spike later.
Are you sure ?
I mean the voltage, after the current through a coil stops and the magnetic field collapses. This voltage is sometimes much higher (in high-inductive coils) , so that you can lit up a neon of 90 volts with only a source-voltage of e.g. 10 volts.
There are special booster circuits witch do that, it is like a transformer with only one coil...
nevertheless thank you for your answer and sorry for my newbee questions.
-
Are you sure ?
I mean the voltage, after the current through a coil stops and the magnetic field collapses. This voltage is sometimes much higher (in high-inductive coils) , so that you can lit up a neon of 90 volts with only a source-voltage of e.g. 10 volts.
There are special booster circuits witch do that, it is like a transformer with only one coil...
nevertheless thank you for your answer and sorry for my newbee questions.
Look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9irQJ6mivs
It will answer your questions about the boost converter and the NRG circuit. They are Not the same.
-
Dear Overunity Seekers !
Maybe nobody wants to realize it - but capacitors - like any other electrical components - and everything else on earth - are not perfect.
If you shorten an almost empty battery - you see how the voltage recovers after removing the short-circuit bridge.
Why ?
Because the battery acts as an infinite amount of elementary batteries - which are partly dead (if empty) or not - which can be seen from the outside that the "internal resistance" - thats an "ideal" approach increases.
BTW its really very difficult to discharge a battery to almost "0" - unless u shorten it for a very long periode.
Similar issues apply to most of capacitors - in higher or lower degreee.
HV caps are well known for these effects.
If you short-circuit them - they are not empty. Internal charge arranges in a way that there is no voltage at the connections.
Its like a bottle with some liquid you cannot empty completly.
BTW: Discharged is not the "lowest" internal energy state of these caps. They tend to increase their "outside" voltage to achieve internal lowest energy state again.
Well short circuit again - same thing - can do that ad infinitum.
This is even supported by the very low leakage current of HV caps.
People who design high precision integrators for very sensible equippement know that.
There are some types of caps which shows very less of that effect - mks types for example.
Now you can flame me to death.
rgds.
I have a personal theory similar to your theory. I think a battery is itself a free energy generator. A battery doesn't produces energy. A battery gets energy from the local vacuum and draws it to everywhere (motor, circuit, light bulb...).
I think amperage is not the amount of energy that pass throught a device. I think amperage is like a gate. When the gate is opened the battery can get energy from the vacuum.
In theory, in a perfect superconductor we would only need pure voltage. But the conductors we use (mainly copper wire) are SEMIconductors. That means there is a resistance. When the current saturates the circuit, that resistance decreases the "amperage" of the battery.
I don't know if I you understand my theory...
T. Bearden says that when we draw current, we are closing the bipolar gate. Maybe when the battery is full, there is an assymetry somewhere in the battery, and while that assymetry is present, we can draw energy. When we have drawn too much energy, the amperage is 0 and the bipolar gate is closed and the poles are symmetric and we can't get more power from the battery. When we 'recharge' a battery, we aren't sending electrons to the battery. We are de-symmetricaling the poles. I mean, turning the poles from symetric to assymetric. Then, we have opened the bipolar gate again (recharged) the battery.
In this thread we're trying to explain that when we connect the source to a resistance, the voltage appears instantly in the circuit, but current needs some time to appear. So, if we switch on/off very fast, we have only extracted pure voltage from the battery. We haven't extracted current. So, the battery is full forever (in theory, because in years the battery discharges). Then, the battery can recharge itself the potential (voltage) again. In this case, we don't extract current, because we're only extracting pure voltage. So the semi-conductor acts like a superconductor because there isn't resistance in that 1 msec.
If we don't draw current from the battery, we can extract all the potential we want forever, because the battery can recharge itself the potential, but not the current.
The energy extracted from that battery (pure potential) have different properties in the circuits: a positive resistor is a negative resistor, the battery acts like a diode, etc... There are 'Negative Properties' in the circuit components.
I read somewhere that there are 4 kinds of electric current. We use the 'electron current', and we need to use 'ionic current' if we don't want to discharge a battery. When we draw current we are turning some factor in symmetric. A full charged battery has some kind of broken symmetry or something similar. So, I think in all the cases we're drawing voltage. But in the common systems we can meause the 'amperes', but in reallity we aren't measuring the electron flow. We are measuring the speed we're turning the battery from assymetric to symetric. Of course, current appears when there is resistance, because in a perfect superconductor we can't measure the amperage because there isn't resistance. In a perfect superconductor, we can run any device using only pure voltage. But in the common semi-conductors, there is an opposition to the pass of the electricity and that opposition is the factor that discharges (assymetric to symmetric) the battery.
A battery is also called a Dipole, and each dipole has north and south pole. A magnet is a free energy device, batteries are also a free energy devices. The only reason why we cannot get energy from magnets is because they have equal strengths at the poles. Without a difference in potential, work can not be done.
Leedskalnin shown that we can re-configure the magnetism of a magnet to get energy from a motionless magnet. So, I think the amperage is a magnetic property (remember that ALL is magnetic, but much less than ferromagnetism). When there is a difference in the strengths of the poles, there is assymetry and then we can extract electromagnetic energy. But if we connect for a high amount of time the battery, then the battery discharges. The time current needs to appear in the circuit is some femtoseconds. If we switch on/off very fast, then we have extracted pure voltage and the assymetry of the battery is the same (bipolar gate opened). If we maintain the battery connected for a while, then current appears and we're killing the bipolar gate because we're turning to symmetric the poles.
I know there are techniques to inhibit the current and I know Tesla did something about that.
Maybe the link I posted some posts before, it's a good Current Inhibitor device. If we don't draw current, then we will have a free energy device. Look at the batteries like a Vacuum to Electromagnetic Energy transducers, not like a piece that contains electrons.
I hope someone understand this theory, ;D
-
Hi NRG,
The math looks good! Can I ask though, and sorry if this has already been covered, you are quoting the printed capacitance values and of course they will have a manufacturing tolerance which could throw all the calculations off. Have you measured the actual capacitance of each capacitor with a capacitance meter or perhaps used a known resistance and timed discharge method?
Thanks,
Dave.
-
Attached some schematic on the composition of a "real" cap containing infinite amount of elementary caps with a series resistor Rs, a parallel resistor Rp and a parasitic coupling capacitor Ck.
If you have a serious amount of C elementary with high Rs - they can even be charged spontaneous thru Ck - but are quite difficult to discharge because of high Rs.
Thats no theory. Just look into standard literature.
Unused HV caps should be stored short-circuit because of that effect.
Because they can "recharge" by this effect - and that can be dangerous if you operate / mount them.
rgds.
-
here are discussing about orthodox science and 'alternative' science. Until know, we haven't built any succesfull free energy generator. Maybe because we're using wrong theories, or we aren't using the theories we must to use. We can think un-thinkable theories if we want to achieve un-thinkable things.
-
I wouldn´t trust any cap - which is "more" than a medium sized plate capacitor.
As long as the operating frequency is low - an elctrical shielded plate capacitor (preferable with vaccum as dielectric) should operate almost like an "ideal" cap.
Everything else has Rs, Rp, Ck.
Thats why "professional" RLC meters measure at least Rs and Rp.
If we need overunity to explain the behaviour of an HV cap - than we are far out anyway.
-
Magnethos,
I am all for new theories, but before we should throw away well researched current theory we should atleast elliminate all factors which could lead to error before we re-write all the text books with Beardens theories!
D.
-
Magnethos,
I am all for new theories, but before we should throw away well researched current theory we should atleast elliminate all factors which could lead to error before we re-write all the text books with Beardens theories!
D.
:)
I like to post that kind of uncommon theories, maybe someone reading that kind of theories can find the 'big solution' about this field. All is about thinking in different ways.. because we are seeing that if we continue thinking with the common point of view, then we cannot obtain nothing. ;D
-
Magnethos,
I have read all of Beardens books and papers over the years. Perhaps you can explain to me how his claims that all waves are really Longitudinal can explain the need for antenna polarisation?
Regards,
Dave.
-
About your question, I haven't enought info to answer you ???
Again, Here you have the videos I talked about.
http://www.mediafire.com/?oe2gojocmdz
A guy from the youtube shows how to get pure voltage using a circuit. I call this circuit a Current Inhibitor.
The idea is to use this circuit to draw pure voltage and use the NRG circuit to amplify the energy and ultra-fast charge the caps.
-
How can you measure pure voltage? A meter requires a small current to flow inside in order to get a voltage drop across it. Pure voltage cannot be seen?!
D.
-
How can you measure pure voltage? A meter requires a small current to flow inside in order to get a voltage drop across it. Pure voltage cannot be seen?!
D.
Maybe an electrostatic meter? A Scalar waves meter? ???
I don't know
-
Electrostatic sounds good. There will be an inrush of current while the plates go to their equilibrium positions, but once the voltage is on the plates and the instrument is indicating, there should be ideally no leakage current. Of course no instrument is perfect. But a good ES voltmeter won't even draw much current while it is coming up. I put up a video of an ES voltmeter hooked up to one of my mini VDG machines--its current is probably picoamperes--and you can see how quickly it comes up. This is probably the highest-impedance voltmeter type you will likely encounter, so it comes as close to a "pure voltage" measurement as you are likely to get, outside a standards laboratory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E
-
Hi NRG,
The math looks good! Can I ask though, and sorry if this has already been covered, you are quoting the printed capacitance values and of course they will have a manufacturing tolerance which could throw all the calculations off. Have you measured the actual capacitance of each capacitor with a capacitance meter or perhaps used a known resistance and timed discharge method?
Thanks,
Dave.
Dave you make an excellent point,
I did indeed misinterpret the values written on the side of the supposed "1000uF capacitors".
They are .1 Farad capacitors, below is the address for the manufacturer's data sheet.
http://www.cooperbussmann.com/pdf/670fae07-c39d-4a13-852d-803aea8bc2a8.pdf
-
I can recommend vacuum tube (preamp) voltage meters.
>=100MOhm input resistance.
Maybe a little bit bulky - but - somewhat different than
what is used nowadays.
rgds.
-
Looking closer:
Test #3 is:
-37.38 volts?
So #3 should be disregarded. It was really just a preparation for test #4 (or #3 if you now relabel)
But still, #4 apparantly shows a 10% gain.... hmmm, wonder why....
Is the coil still hooked up in these tests?
And is the coil still hooked up to the battery?
And the pulse time of #4 was much shorter than #1 and #2 as evidenced by the smaller power input.
(1/2 the pulse as test #1)
P.S. It would be nice to have a wider view so as to see how the pulses are done and what leads are being used.
I see the yellow lead from the capacitor...
And the green lead.. isn't that from the battery?
etc. etc.
Okay, I see, I misinterpreted it as 373 Volts..
Surely my fault, cause I could not really see the dot on the meter.
Well, the 4th test is now with 110 % the only overunity result...
Also the new video of him with 5 x 100.000 uF caps in series are all
underunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYQnxDnHMiA
He draws in the first experiment about 0.4 Joules from the 5 series caps and
gets only 0.096 Joules out at charging up the cap to 80 Volts..
It seems it depends on the cap´s inner resistance,
how good you can drive a high current pulse through the coil
at contact point.
As the 5 x 100.000 uF caps are all in series the inner resistance
is 5 times as high, so using the blue electrolyte cap in the other
video was much better, as it seemed to have less inner resistance.
So better try to use low resistance caps if you work with these systen,
Regards, Stefan.
-
Here are two pictures I captured from the video.
The first picture is the peak current draw from the blue cap before the voltage in the 30uF cap rises to 154.5 V (Minute 1:52)
The second picture is the peak current draw from the blue cap before the voltage in the 30uF cap rises to 145.7 V (Minute 1:21)
You can see that the more current I draw from the source the less energy I gain in the collector. (This is a key point in Free Energy Generation)
-
Hi NRG,
Does the effect disppear if you use something other than the piece of iron on which to spark the connection?
Thanks,
Dave.
-
Hi NRG,
Does the effect disppear if you use something other than the piece of iron on which to spark the connection?
Thanks,
Dave.
Dave great question,
By "spark the connection" are you referring to the Zinc strip contacted by the two alligator leads? Seen to the left here (Minute 0:34) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhS4TxP29mM
I have used Brass, Nickle, Carbon, Zinc, Copper, and Magnesium strips in the past to connect A, B, & C wire http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.0. None of which have an extreme negative/positive effect.
Besides the strips, I have only used the side of the 30uF capacitor case to connect AB&C wire.
I will try to include the results of using each material in future video's, which should be rather interesting.
You can find the strips here http://www.unitednuclear.com/chem.htm
-
There is one event in the video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
watch minute 1:07 and 1:09.
where the COP is at least 5 in my calculation.
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3fxOqjSsyc
He calculates COP= 16,
depends on what exact voltages you read there.
Also the chargeup backside cap is only 30 uF and not 32 uF.
But this is extremly interesting and definately overunity.
My calculation got me COP= 5 with using the
start voltage= 25.88 Volts and end voltage 25.87 Volts on
the 7500 uF supply cap C1 and the 30 uF charge cap C2 charged up to 25.62 Volts.
So lets calculate:
Before test:
EnergyC1= 0.5 x (25.88)^2 x 0.0075 Farad= 2.511654 Joules
After test:
EnergyC1= 0.5 x (25.87)^2 x 0.0075 Farad= 2.509713375 Joules
Energy lost in cap C1= 0.001940625 Joules
Energy in Cap C2= 0.5 x (25.62)^2 x 0.000030 Farad= 0.009845766 Joules
So COP = 0.009845766 Joules / 0.001940625 Joules = 5.07
Regards, Stefan.
-
Hi Stefan,
That's definitely worth investigating!! Another example is 1 minute and 50 seconds into the first video at -->
1:50 to 1:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
Blue cap: (0.5*22.07^2*7500e-6 - 0.5*20.23^2*7500e-6) = 0.29187 J
Gray cap: 0.5*155^2*30e-6 = 0.360375 J
Efficiency: 0.360375 J / 0.29187 J = 123%
That's over 100% efficiency!
PL
-
Hi all,
Figures look good! But they are quite close together and we have not accounted for the energy he uses from his hand to do the manual switching, hopefully this can be done with mosfets and a digital switching circuit, but that will need current to run. But I suspect a spark is required and so a more elaborate and power hungry switching circuit will be required...
D.
-
IMO the 123% example clearer because the blue cap voltage changes by a lot more, from 1.84 volts, rather than just 0.01 volts. 0.01V might be too difficult because of cap absorption. Although the example where the blue cap changes by 1.84V for 123% eff. is a lot clearer.
PL
-
Figures look good! But they are quite close together and we have not accounted for the energy he uses from his hand to do the manual switching, hopefully this can be done with mosfets and a digital switching circuit, but that will need current to run.
Using a MOSFET is a good idea! Although I'd imagine such hand energy is on the order of micro joules at most. The spark lasts about 0.5ms, the electric force between the plate and lead in terms of Newtons is extreme low, amounting to almost nothing. From what I see, the only down fall could be dielectric absorption. We can't tell dielectric absorption in the videos because his DMM has too low of input resistance. You can see the cap voltage drops over time, mostly because of the DMM. If the DMM was removed, then there's a real chance that the blue caps DC voltage could rise a lot in about one hours time. That's the only way to tell what the caps *real* voltage is; i.e., let the cap sit disconnected and undisturbed for awhile.
PL
-
The whole 'experment' is bunk.
Consider the time constant while discharging a capacitor:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/capdis.html
(Capacitor Discharge Calculation)
Consider a resistance of 4 ohms:
The time constant is .03 seconds. This means in .03 seconds the capacitor will lose about 2/3 of its charge.
26V x 66% = 17 volts consumed
And that's with a pulse of .03 seconds
-
The whole 'experment' is bunk.
Consider the time constant while discharging a capacitor:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/capdis.html
(Capacitor Discharge Calculation)
Consider a resistance of 4 ohms:
The time constant is .03 seconds. This means in .03 seconds the capacitor will lose about 2/3 of its charge.
26V x 66% = 17 volts consumed
And that's with a pulse of .03 seconds
You forgot to consider "Inductance." He's momentarily touching the plate, which connects the battery to a ferrite core coil.
PL
-
"THE BATTERY"
So connecting the battery in the circuit means additional energy input, further invalidating the claim of "capacitor input only"
-
"THE BATTERY"
So connecting the battery in the circuit means additional energy input, further invalidating the claim of "capacitor input only"
NO, he disconnects the battery prior to performing the test.
PL
-
The portion of the test referenced by Stefan is IMPOSSIBLE considering the test conditions 'presented' by NRG.
So he pulsed the capacitor and shows a drop of .01 volts???
Must have been a pulse of .000001 seconds??
-
I've seen many experiments whereby hitting a metal plate with a metal lead has a contact time on the order of microseconds. It's not the physical contact time that's typically long. Rather, the air between the spark can remain ionized for around 0.5ms, but that depends on the current.
PL
-
Lets please not bury Stefan's links -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3fxOqjSsyc
PL
-
Pulsing a 7500 uF cap at 28V into a 4 ohm load by hand that results in a .01 volt consumption.
NO WAY
-
Pulsing a 7500 uF cap at 28V into a 4 ohm load by hand that results in a .01 volt consumption.
NO WAY
It's a bifilar ferrite core coil that has reactance. This is what, the 4th or 5th rock you've thrown. Please learn basic 101 electronics before throwing rocks.
Stefan's links -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3fxOqjSsyc
-
I would call that the ancestor of all step-up converters.
With a nice coil and a HV cap you could reach kV with an AA battery.
Do I miss out something ?
-
Just yesterday I was working with a much smaller rod core for magnetic viscosity measurements, and in just 0.6ms the current only reached 0.9A. The current was rising at a steady rate-- inductance. So it is very clear that close to 100% of the caps energy is going into the magnetic field in that guys ferrite core coil.
Again, the only possible draw back that I see is dielectric absorption. For example, place a battery on a similar large cap for several hours, then remove the battery, then quickly place a load on the cap and remove the load, then measure the caps DC voltage, then disconnect everything from the cap and let it stand for an hour or so, then measure the caps DC voltage. It's not uncommon for an electrolytic caps DC voltage to rise by a significant amount *after* being used-- dielectric absorption.
PL
-
I sent a private message to the guy asking if he would make a video showing short clips as he makes another one of the bifilar ferrite core coil, and to include a good ruler in the video.
Out of all the present claims of developed & working "free energy" machines on this site, this seems to be the only valid one at the time.
Stefan, maybe this should be its own thread.
PL
-
Please learn basic 101 electronics before throwing rocks.
Well PAUL
I've presented my opinion with data, calculations and have done hands-on testing along this subject as well.
Presenting information contrary to your opinion isn't throwing rocks.
But your comment directed at me sure was......
Maybe you should try pulsing a capacitor as presented and see how close you get to .01 volts consumption..............
(hint: not within a country mile)
-
Well PAUL
I've presented my opinion with data, calculations and have done hands-on testing along this subject as well.
Presenting information contrary to your opinion isn't throwing rocks.
But your comment directed at me sure was......
The data you presented was "4 ohms." You didn't even mention the coils inductance, which is the heart of this. Sorry, but anyone who knows basic 101 electronics would see your error. If you've done hands on tests with similar types of coils and claim that the tapping a lead on a plate will discharge a 7500uF cap then sorry, but that clearly shows you're in error. I have a similar core except with a fraction of the windings and even it has enough inductance to not do what you claim.
In that video, nearly all of the energy goes into the magnetic field in his coil-- inductance.
PL
-
BTW, my iron core coil rod has less than 100 turns, far less than that guys, and my coil has 3mH. Tapping the metal plate can be less than 1ms. The air ionization can typically last 0.5ms. Please do the basic 101 electronics math -->
V = - L * di / dt
and
di = - V * dt / L
and
Energy = 0.5 * L * I^2
Energy = 0.5 * C * V^2
That should be enough basic 101 electronics to get the answer. You may discover that the 7500uF cap does not immediately discharge because of inductance. If his coil is 100mH, perhaps higher, then try that out and see what you get.
PL
-
wow, much excitement about nothing.
you guys want an even simpler experiment of "energy from the <fill in the blank>" ?
Here's it is:
Just charge up an electrolitic capacitor and monitor the voltage as you short it out quickly, what happens to the voltage? Why the voltage keeps going up, wow !!! .... amazing .... free energy !!!!!
When you understand the nature of electrolitics you will begin to understand what this guy is doing. Electrolitic caps are not the standard caps and for the short impulses you give it the equation E = 0.5 C V^2 does not hold, the battery like nature of the cap playes a big part in this short impulse intervals, that's why it's called an electrolitic capacitor.
Stefan, you've been around for a while, we've seen this before in one form or another.
EM
-
Electrolitic caps are not the standard caps and for the short impulses you give it the equation E = 0.5 C V^2 does not hold
It does hold, but you have to understand the capacitance of an electrolytic is not static, it's dynamic.
the battery like nature of the cap playes a big part in this short impulse intervals, that's why it's called an electrolitic capacitor.
The "battery nature" of the electrolytic capacitor can be on the order of picowatts. That's not what this guy is seeing, period.
Thankfully 2009 *will* be the year of global "free energy."
PL
-
All this entire experiment is described in the book "The Final Secret of Free Energy" of T.Bearden.
But we've mixed the theory of that book with the experiment of NRGfromthevacuum, and the results are different (because the experiments are different).
The original theory (book's theory), is easy. We need to know only the relaxation time of the material. Once we know the relaxation time, then we need to Pulse DC electricity below the relaxation time. In other words, we need to pulse DC faster than the relaxation time. Here the COP doesn't exists because we aren't drawing power from the battery. We're only drawing pure potential (voltage). Then, we can measure the output power from the collector (Capacitors). But I repeat: we aren't drawing power from the source, for that reason the COP doesn't exists here. We only need to dope a conductor because all pure materials have a very fast relaxation time (in order of 10 ^ -14 secs). If we dope a conductor maybe we can get a relaxation time of 10 ^ -8 and then we would be able to work with that time. Maybe using aluminum and tin as a dope material, we will have a good wire. One option is to use Fe-Al wire, but it's difficult to melt wire at home, so maybe we can use the correct amounts of Aluminum and Tin to get a good wire.
The only thing I need to know is how to calculate the relaxation time in Alloys. I know how to calculate it in pure metals, but not in alloys. When I know how to calculate it, then the only thing we need to do is to build a frequency generator and a little of wire. Then we will have an unlimited source of energy.
Of course, I'm looking for the formula to calculate the relaxation time. But If anyone knows how to calculate it in alloys, we will have the final answer. Only a formula and I will show you how to get a free energy device.
PS: I hope someone will know the answer because we want to get a solution and don't forget this post in the unlimited bytes of the net.
-
All this entire experiment is described in the book "The Final Secret of Free Energy" of T.Bearden.
Not only that, my dear. This whole thing is the secret of tesla.
Tesla discovered that the faster he can switch and the more abrupt he open his "switch" after closing (before real current saturates the wire) the more aetheric-radient scalar waves radiate of his wire and opens a fully new "kind" of electricity, the so called cold-electricity.
And with this kind of electricity, Tesla was given the ability to create heavy currents and very high voltage, directly from the aether.
Nearly all tesla patents are non conventionel electrical systems, but devices to control cold-electricity.
After the discovering of this scalar waves, tesla tried to build more and more devices, witch can more and more shorten the switch sequence.
Look at the magnetically quenched spark gap. With this device tesla was able to create sudden high-voltage discharges under the microsecond-range.
There is no need for semi-conductors, in contrast semi-conductor will never be able to create disruptive discharges because of leak current !
-
I said I read it in the Bearden's book, but I don't know if there is the same theory in other books. As you said, Tesla also explored this phenomenon.
The problem here is the extremely fast switching that we need to achieve if we want to use copper as wire. There are 2 solutions:
1. Create a very very fast automatic switch (around 1 ^ 10 -14 secs)
2. Create an alloy with a higher relaxation time
Do you know what kind of wire Tesla used?
As you know, batteries are free energy generators themselves. The problem is we don't know how to use them correctly. When we draw current, we're closing the "magic gate" that batteries need to tap energy from the vacuum. But batteries must be used to get pure potential (scalar) energy. I don't know why we get Transverse energy when we use a battery in the common way, instead of getting logitudinal potential.
-
1. Create a very very fast automatic switch (around 1 ^ 10 -14 secs)
2. Create an alloy with a higher relaxation time
1. is easy, as described above, the adjustable magnetically quenchend spark gap will solve this problem.
2. No need for it. High-inductive coils increases the saturation-time. This is also the reason, that Nrg does use such a coil. Without the coil, he will never be able to switch under the range of relaxation time manually...
Even Tesla had no source of special alloys.
Please read my theorie that all real overunity-devices need a spark gap to create energy of the "wheelwork of nature" - the aether.
It is postet at the tpu-forum: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4100.0
-
1. is easy, as described above, the adjustable magnetically quenchend spark gap will solve this problem.
Explain me more about that, because that extremely fast switching time it's difficult to replicate by me.
2. No need for it. High-inductive coils increases the saturation-time. This is also the reason, that Nrg does use such a coil. Without the coil, he will never be able to switch under the range of relaxation time manually...
I don't know how to calculate the relaxation time using variables as the high-inductive coils. I only know to calculate the relaxation time in pure metals.
Even Tesla had no source of special alloys.
Please read my theorie that all real overunity-devices need a spark gap to create energy of the "wheelwork of nature" - the aether.
It is postet at the tpu-forum: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4100.0
Of course, I will read it now
-
Explain me more about that, because that extremely fast switching time it's difficult to replicate by me.
You need a cascade-amplifier to generate high-voltage potential and store this in one or more caps. Then you need a spark gap, where the distance between each contact can be adjusted with a screw. Above and under the gap is in each case a perment magnet or an electro magnet, it will "blow" out the spark when it discharges.
That is the principle behind the magnetically quenched spark gap, the level of voltage and the distance will define the frequency, the magnetic flux of pm or e-magnet will define the shortness of the spark (time-duration)
I don't know how to calculate the relaxation time using variables as the high-inductive coils. I only know to calculate the relaxation time in pure metals.
I also don't know how to calculate it. I think there is need for experimenting, because there are doubtless some more factors involved.
-
Frederik,
In the other threads of the TPU-subforum I often hear the people crying for very fast switching and I think that this is the key to overunity.
And we need nothing more than a spark-gap, then you have your very fast switch. Also in many Tesla-patents he used his spark-gap and you can control the frequenz of switching by changing the capacitance of your condenser or the distance between the gap.
My question is... How can I change the Frequency and what is the maximum frequency that I can achieve? Using the spark-gap
You have just said that the distance between spark-gaps and the voltage can adjust the frequency. Any formula? Or I need to experiment?
The important question is... Can I achieve a frequency of 10 ^ -14 secs ? (100,000,000,000,000 Hz)
-
The important question is... Can I achieve a frequency of 10 ^ -14 secs ? (100,000,000,000,000 Hz)
Why do you need such a frequency ? Use high-inductive coils and there will be no need to achive frequencies in this dimension.
Tesla was not only able to charge capacitors with this sudden disruptive discharge, he tried to collect the aetheric scalar waves with a device, described in Patent # 685,958 "Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy."
With this device he was able to collect the radient waves from the aether (the cold-electricity which he created) and convert it to conventional electrical current.
Will you see this method on a real free energy device ? Then look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rFjrPo9mws
-
Why do you need such a frequency ? Use high-inductive coils and there will be no need to achive frequencies in this dimension.
I think I need to use that frequency because if I use a lower freq, then the current saturates the circuit and I would be drawing current from the battery. But using the high-inductive coil... as you say, the relaxation time changes... but how much? we don't know...
So... if you say that using high-inductive coils, I don't need to use that high frequency... Can I extract pure potential from the source? I know there is a lot of theory in the net, but I haven't seen a succesfull replication yet.
-
@ magnethos
sorry, you don't understand me right.
Haven't you seen a "Current / Voltage" graph of a high-inductive coil?
First there is voltage, and then later comes the current. So every high-inductive coil is in fact a device to increase the saturation-time...
As I mentioned before, NRG were never be able to achieve overunity when he hasn't that high-inductive coil. With it, the relaxation-time increases to a range, where he can switch per hand...
Did you ever read the book "Free Energy secrets of cold electricity" ?
-
Thanks very much Frederick :)
I haven't seen a graph of an high-inductive coil.
About the Peter's book, I have heard about it but I haven't read it.
:-[
So, if I use this schematic... I would be extracting pure potential from the battery.
Schematic explanation:
A battery is connected to the high-inductive coils, 2, so the saturation-time is more than 1 msec.
The capacitor bank is controled by a switch. In the first cycle the cap bank is conected to the source (and NOT to the load, device, etc...) to get the pure potential and in the second cycle the cap bank is connected to the load and NOT to the source. In the second cycle the load gets the energy stored in the caps. And then we need to repeat these 2 cycles again and again.
You said that using some High-Inductive Coils we can get pure potential from the battery. I think using 2 is high enough to increase the saturation time and we will be able to get only pure potential from the source and charge the caps.
Am I right or not about the theory? I see this experiment extremely easy to be true. For that reason I ask to you..
-
You said that using some High-Inductive Coils we can get pure potential from the battery.
No, you misunderstood me a bit at this point. There will always be some current, not only voltage. I think to get pure potential we have to deal with very short duration switching and very high-inductive coils, but you get the point.
About the Peter's book, I have heard about it but I haven't read it.
Try to get it. In my eyes it is the best book about this topic. The secret of tesla is so damn good described in this book. I researched notes, articles, colorado spring notes and so on about tesla and tesla patents for years, but I never found the so called tesla secret. I didn't found it because I'm an electrical engineer and I saw his circuits always from the conventionel electrical sight... never from the unconventional (cold-electricity) view...
-
No, you misunderstood me a bit at this point. There will always be some current, not only voltage. I think to get pure potential we have to deal with very short duration switching and very high-inductive coils, but you get the point.
Sorry, I explained it bad. I meant that using high-inductive coils we can increase the saturation-time. Of course, we need to switch very fast also to get pure potential because if we use only the high-inductive coils it's impossible to get 100% pure potential.. So, using some high-inductive coils in series + very fast switch = pure potential. And we can use the technique you explained, to get a fast switching time. :)
Maybe I will use 4 or 5 H-Inductive Coils to increase the saturation-time. I need to think about the possibility of using more or less coils.
In the next month I will try to get the book. Because I have a lot of books about electronic healing, to read in my bedroom.
So... I think we have the answer. We only need to build and see what happens. In theory, this device will work.
-
As I mentioned before, NRG were never be able to achieve overunity when he hasn't that high-inductive coil. With it, the relaxation-time increases to a range, where he can switch per hand...
It's the *only* way he's going to achieve "free energy," and that's exactly what he's using, a bifilar ferrite core.
PL
-
There is one event in the video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
watch minute 1:07 and 1:09.
where the COP is at least 5 in my calculation.
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3fxOqjSsyc
He calculates COP= 16,
depends on what exact voltages you read there.
Also the chargeup backside cap is only 30 uF and not 32 uF.
But this is extremly interesting and definately overunity.
My calculation got me COP= 5 with using the
start voltage= 25.88 Volts and end voltage 25.87 Volts on
the 7500 uF supply cap C1 and the 30 uF charge cap C2 charged up to 25.62 Volts.
So lets calculate:
Before test:
EnergyC1= 0.5 x (25.88)^2 x 0.0075 Farad= 2.511654 Joules
After test:
EnergyC1= 0.5 x (25.87)^2 x 0.0075 Farad= 2.509713375 Joules
Energy lost in cap C1= 0.001940625 Joules
Energy in Cap C2= 0.5 x (25.62)^2 x 0.000030 Farad= 0.009845766 Joules
So COP = 0.009845766 Joules / 0.001940625 Joules = 5.07
Regards, Stefan.
Hi,
Here ar my thoughts:
D = Cap1 / Cap2 = 7500uF / 32uF = 234
If you connect the charged Cap1 directly to Cap2, the charge of Cap2 will be:
UCap2 = UCap1 - (UCap1 - 1/D) = 25,87V - (25,87 - 1/234) = 25,76V
If you go via the coil, Cap1 will build up a magnetic field in the coil. When the current is switched off, the magnetic field will break down and make a high voltage output. This high voltage is charging Cap2 to higher voltage. You did also see that Cap1 was discharging more rapidly during those tests - maybe there is a connection between taken energy and energy left?
Simply put: You cannot only measure voltage. And the calcs shows there is nothing mysterious going on. He claims that 1V is 234V. Ofcourse - Cap2 has 234 times less capacity, so in theory he could use that setup to charge Cap2 that much, but then the 1V has dropped to zero.
Hoestly, i cannot find any vacuum energy going on here. I am tired of misleading measurements. Put this Cap1, and Cap2 in a motor and see if it runs forever. That would provide evidence of COP 16 or not.
Br.
Vidar
-
There's nothing misleading in his calculations. The math *clearly* shows "free energy." So, either it's -->
A. "Free energy"
B. Something wrong with his cap. Perhaps slightly damaged and less than 7500uF.
C. The caps dielectric absorption is high enough to explain the results.
Here's the clear cut math on one of his measurements shown in his video -->
Hi Stefan,
That's definitely worth investigating!! Another example is 1 minute and 50 seconds into the first video at -->
1:50 to 1:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo
Blue cap: (0.5*22.07^2*7500e-6 - 0.5*20.23^2*7500e-6) = 0.29187 J
Gray cap: 0.5*155^2*30e-6 = 0.360375 J
Efficiency: 0.360375 J / 0.29187 J = 123%
That's over 100% efficiency!
PL
-
@all
I posted this circuit a long ago. I stumbled today with this thread. The odd thing is that I was trying to do something similar.
Maybe this circuit can help you and me on our quest for free energy.
It is the same principle used here but using a transistor to connect the coil and the battery.
The question is: Does anybody knows what needs to be changed on it in order to make it work?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5924.msg134972#msg134972
Jesus
-
That brings up a good point. A lot of people seem to think that sparks are what makes "free energy." I totally disagree. I'd bet anything that if this guy put in a mosfet to remove the spark stuff that it would be even more efficient. Marcus Wagner has also has a bifilar iron core coil that looks almost exactly like this guys. Marcus Wagner claims to have at least one time made his solid-state design self-running! And with no sparks!!
If you look at my magnetic research you'll see two coils that meet in the middle canceling each other other. The bifilar core coil could have the same type of effect, which is to first slowly magnetize the core in this low effective permeability state, and then let one of the coils to rapidly flip.
There's a lot more to it though. I already have the detailed FEMM files that clearly shows "free energy," and it's backed up with conventional magnetic theory. So both conventional magnetic theory and mathematics show "free energy." There's nothing wrong with well-established conventional mathematics. The problems is in the scientists that limit it. For example, the said genius that wrote LTspice has said that conventional mathematics shows that diodes should rectify Johnson noise, and I've proven that. It's clear cut, no two ways about it. And a few weeks ago I proved with conventional mathematics that my magnetic theory *must* work according to conventional physics.
It's only a matter of time now. It's difficult to make a design that will overcome the great losses in transistors and wire resistance, but it's doable. If you people want to succeed in "free energy," then take the path of concrete logic. Intuition is great, but it's only going to get you to the approximate area, and from there it's up to concrete logic to find the details-- mathematics and detailed concepts. The mathematics of conventional has not failed us. It works all the time. It got us into space. It's the scientists that use such math that have failed us in regards to "free energy." They simply *refuse* to entertain such thoughts because of one of the greatest crimes in history --> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. My diode research proved that 2LoT is *not* a law, but a tendency.
It's a guarantee. Global Free Energy in 2009!
PL
-
That brings up a good point. A lot of people seem to think that sparks are what makes "free energy." I totally disagree. I'd bet anything that if this guy put in a mosfet to remove the spark stuff that it would be even more efficient.
....
PL
I post this circuit hoping that you can point out how to add the mosfet to it.
I am new to electronics, even though I can draw a schematic from several others.
Jesus
-
guys, once again the phenomena shown in the videos is because of the electrolitic capacitor's properties, they are not constant and the simplistic equation does not hold.
A more appropriate equation is of the form:
C = A + B/(1 + w^2 t)
see this paper here:
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/104/index.html
EM
-
guys, once again the phenomena shown in the videos is because of the electrolitic capacitor's properties, they are not constant and the simplistic equation does not hold.
A more appropriate equation is of the form:
C = A + B/(1 + w^2 t)
see this paper here:
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/104/index.html
EM
I agree. I have worked with sound for 20 years now, and capacitors has been a part of cross over frequency calculations. Any capacitor has its own inductance, due to the fact they are winded up like a coil. However, the two metal foils inside a capacitor is working in oposite direction to each other, but the process isn't ideal. So the higher the frequenvy is the greater the inductance will influence on the cross over frequency.
However, it exists expencive capacitors, which is winded in two operations in each direction. The foil is also made of gold, and there is oil as a dielectricum. M-Cap is a known manufacturer for these capacitors. This method requires a physically twice the sice capacitor to maintain the same capacitance. These capacitors has proven to be frequency independed when it comes to capacitance and ther are often used in expencive High End loudspeakers where tolerances are no issue. The price for a 1uF cap is often more than 50 dollars.
The other way to make a capacitor, is to fold the two metal foils like a fan, and is then compressed together to a flat square capacitor. These capacitors has no inductans whatsoever, but are unfortunately very expencive and ineffective to manufacture. These capacitors is manufactured by hand, by the way. The dielectrium is silk and line seed oil. Line seed oil is often used as a base in different house paintings to preserve the wood. The deal is how line seed oil capture water. Water is a electric dipole which never will be staticly charged. The silk can carry 50 times its own weight in water moist.
These capacitors are manufactured:
Like this: + \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ -
Then compressed: + ||||||| -
Br.
Vidar
-
@PaulLowran
The bifilar ferrite coil is the key to achieve "free energy". There are others ways to obtain pure voltage from the battery, but the other techniques are difficult to replicate (Al-Fe Wire, The Current Inhibitor circuit, etc...). So the best and easiest way is to use the bifilar coils to increase the time current needs to saturate the circuit. Using some high-inductive coils in series and a fast switch, we can extract pure voltage from the battery and charge a capacitor bank.
The maths here are not very important. Because if the efficiency is only 100%, there is still free energy because we're drawing pure voltage from the battery. If we don't draw current, we will have an infinite battery. The second point is the negentropy effect that NRG shown about the energy amplification. So, this device can be Free Energy (we're only drawing pure voltage without current), and Overunity (the output is higher than the input). The Relaxation Time theory can be found in some advanced books of conventional physics and engineering.
The best way to see if this works is to build the device, maybe using math is a little complex to determine if the device will work or not. The only option is to build the device.
@All
We can try to replicate the experiment using other kind of capacitors. Maybe we won't get the "extra energy" as NRG shown (with electrolytic caps), but we will get pure voltage in the caps. In the link of the videos I posted in this thread I think the guy charged a cap (I don't know what kind of cap) with pure voltage.
The key is to discharge pure voltage in the caps before current starts to flow in the circuit. If we don't draw current from the battery, then we will have a unlimited energy source.
-
guys, once again the phenomena shown in the videos is because of the electrolitic capacitor's properties, they are not constant and the simplistic equation does not hold.
A more appropriate equation is of the form:
C = A + B/(1 + w^2 t)
see this paper here:
http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/104/index.html
EM
That's what I've been saying in this thread for days since the start-- dielectric absorption. Capacitance in electrolytics is dynamic, not static.
The other option is his cap is partially damaged. It could be far less than 7500uF. Regardless, this guys design is worth someone investigating, not ignoring. The only thing of interest to me in this guys design is the bifilar magnetic core. The exact dimensions, spacing between wires and core, and *exactly how he wound the core* is very important.
PL
-
There is too much talk here,
we just need to replicate the experiment.
I am still busy with another programming project and had no time to try it
already.
Somebody else just grab 2 caps and a choke and a power supply and can try it ?
We just need confirmations of the experiment and some new numbers.
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Somebody else just grab 2 caps and a choke and a power supply and can try it ?
No chance in hell of succeeding if that's all you recommend, Stefan. I'm telling you, if it's legit, then his bifilar winding was a freak chance of nature, like winning the lottery. I can't see how a perfectly wound bifilar magnetic core coil would work. This guy should try to replicate his own coil to see if it works. I'd bet the farm he'll have the exact same results as Marcus Wagner, which is a replicate that does not work! Marcus Wagner went through the exact same thing. Marcus has built his bifilar coil many times, it does *not* have the "free energy" effect.
So after this guy builds other bilifar magnetic core coils to discover they don't work the same (no "free energy"), then he should get his video camera, start recording as he slowly unravels his original bifilar coil so he can learn exactly how to wind them.
This of course all presumes his caps are undamaged, and it's not due to any appreciable amount of dielectric absorption.
PL
-
All,
I tried the setup with a normal coil and it did not work. I used a 40 uf 440 volt non polarized capacitor used for ac motors. The coil that was used was wound on a iron core (nail). I'm not sure how many wraps is there as I used a drill press, probably 300+. When I tried to charge the cap through the coil, it quickly charged up to the battery voltage (9v batt). I did notice a temporary inductive kick on my multimeter around 219 volts(it went away so fast I could barely catch it), but the cap did not charge to it. Instead it read the battery voltage. I did this by hand, and as earlier posts stated, I'm probably too slow to accomplish this by hand unless a huge inductor is used.
Does anyone have any idea how big of an inductance is needed? I have a huge spool of 45 awg wire that I could use to make a one. I got it from someone that was throwing it away. Apparently it has a few breaks on the outer layer. It will take me some time to find the breaks.
I'm sort of confused on this bifilar coil idea. If a coil is wound with dual wires with 4 leads coming out of the coil, whenever you combine the leads to two leads, the current is always going in the same direction around the core. The only thing you have accomplished is increasing the inductance, you have not canceled it out. I always thought a true bifilar coil was wound in opposite directions, so the current would go in opposite directions. Anyways. I could probably use some bifilar 101 if anyone has any links that can correct my thinking.
If anyone has any thoughts as to what I could have done wrong, let me know. ( i.e., Should have used electrolytic, don't use iron nails, etc...)
Staffman
-
I'm sort of confused on this bifilar coil idea. If a coil is wound with dual wires with 4 leads coming out of the coil, whenever you combine the leads to two leads, the current is always going in the same direction around the core. The only thing you have accomplished is increasing the inductance, you have not canceled it out. I always thought a true bifilar coil was wound in opposite directions, so the current would go in opposite directions. Anyways. I could probably use some bifilar 101 if anyone has any links that can correct my thinking.
I've answered all of the questions how to build a "free energy" machine at my website -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info
Sorry, there's no stopping it now. Ignoring legitimate stuff, etc. etc. etc. is now futile, lol. There *will* be Global Free Energy in 2009, period.
PL
-
@Staffman
You can find more info about the bifilar coil in the next thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2601-capacitor-charging.html
Armakuni has used monofilar coil, and he got good results too.
Essentially a bifilar coil is pretty much a double wound coil. Instead of using one wire you use two wires of similar or slightly different thickness and wound it around a spool.
There are many techniques that will enhance the effectiveness but lets stick to the basics for now.
Imagine winding a single wire coil around an empty fishing line spool. When you are finished you are left with two wires. The end that you started with and the end that you finished with.
Now imagine winding two wires at the same time around another spool. At the end you are left with 4 wires, two wires you started with and two that you ended with.
There are some nice videos on YouTube that show you exactly how to wind bifilar coils. Actually thats how I started out.
Now in NRG's circuit diagram he shows a bifilar coil but with only two wires which is actually 4 wire ends joined into 2 groups making two wires.
I hope that makes sense.
For now consider winding the bifilar coil first. My first coil I still use. Its approximately 300-350 turns around an emtpy fishing line spool. I used 23 and 26 gage wire to wind it.
-
I think there's going to be a lot of people out of monthly posting paychecks by end of 2009. By 2010 there will be no need for this website. :)
PL
-
Some interesting stuff on the Tesla's Bifilar Coil
http://merlib.org/node/5516
-
Throwing together a simple coil, or a bifilar coil, or whatever and hoping it produces "free energy" is like closing ones eyes, and trying to hit a dim 1 mile away with a bottle rocket.
The "free energy" has nothing to do with the inductance itself. It's no wonder countless unique people over the decades of trying to discover the self-running "free energy" perpetual motion machine have failed. You need to learn the physics to eliminate the guess work. Maybe if you had 10 billion people trying different designs you may get lucky in a few months. Guessing is the wrong path.
The two keys to "free energy" via magnetic materials are -->
1. Magnetic viscosity.
2. Change in effective permeability.
I've finally removed the "guessing." At my website I just posted the Grand Magnetic Equation that will allow me or anyone to finally get a close idea how far away a particular design is to being self-running to overcome the great losses of transistors and wire resistance -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/the-grand-magnetic-equation.html
For example, in a new version of my recent solid-state design, #3, the gained "free energy" from ambient thermal energy (that exists in all matter all the time) is 0.58 Joules, but the losses from copper wiring alone is 0.60 Joules. Almost there! ;D Now if we only had room temp superconducting wires then we have 0.58 Joules of "free energy" per cycle. At 2KHz that comes to 1160 watts!! from a magnetic core that's just 8in long x 3in wide x 1" high.
PL
-
I think there's going to be a lot of people out of monthly posting paychecks by end of 2009. By 2010 there will be no need for this website. :)
PL
Hi PaulLowrance
that's a big clam
NO one here has OU Do you ???? I do not see it
where is your device
cat
-
@Magnethos
Thanks for the link. I was really confused about the bifilar coil. So the purpose of the bifilar windings is to maximize the voltage difference between the windings. Good stuff!!!
I will attempt a bifilar coil setup and try again. I suspect that I will need to recreate the 800+ windings mentioned and try, try again.
Is an electrolytic capacitor absolutely necessary for the setup?
Thanks
-
@ Staffman
All the people that has succesfull replicated the experiment have used an electrolytic cap.
I think you must use an electrolytic one. But if you have another kind of cap, try and say us what happens, maybe you won't get the effect with other kind of cap. But I don't know...
-
I don't believe in over-unit. I believe in the Universal law of Cause & Effect, that what goes-around comes-around, that you reap what you sow, that you cannot create something from nothing, that the *Infinite* already exists, all around you, that in our Universe and all Infinite parallel Universes already exists Infinite energy!
What I have is just as good as a "free energy" device in my hands. Just as NASA has the knowledge to build a rocket, I now have the knowledge to build a "free energy" device that taps into the endless ambient thermal energy source that exists in all matter all the time continually sustained by our Sun. And I'll have the "Smoking Gun" before the end of 2009. Go try to put a bullet in my head. I've been threatened too many times. I'm too buried at my present location to be touched by any hitman with the best laser rifle. It would take the USA military to take me down. :)
Better yet, most legit researchers who have the savvy to make my research work don't post much at all, but they send me emails from time to time. So it's inevitable, unstoppable, unpreventable. Global Free Energy in 2009!
PL
-
Hi PaulLowrance
that's a big clam
NO one here has OU Do you ???? I do not see it
where is your device
cat
BTW, yes to that question. For over one year I've had the first documented and properly tested "free energy" machine that includes the extreme details, including part #'s, to build. It's not going to power anything useful, but you all may know it to be my diode array. Someone who's first name starts with a "T" dragged me away from my magnetic research over two years ago when I was just months away from building my first magnetic based "free energy" machine. Mr. "T" asked me to test his diode array. I replied, but didn't answer his question because I did not want to get caught up in diode research. He asked again. I ignored. He asked 3rd time, and I finally gave in, and the rest is history. It was all a waste of time with the exception that I have undeniable proof that 2LoT is a tendency, not a law!
Make no mistake. My diode research is the thing of the past, and I *will* have a self-running machine that produces usable amounts of power by the end of this year. The mathematics is from well-established conventional physics. It is very clear. It matches my magnetic theory. I took my magnetic theory, made a design in FEMM, ran the sim, and FEMM numbers came back in agreement with my magnetic theory. It will work!
Was I bamboozled? I have my own opinion about that. It's funny the perfect timing these people have. What's hilarious is that I am now *LITERALLY* being bombarded with people begging me to help them out in their stuff. Please Give Up People! Not Going To Happen!!
You legit posters have no clue what's happening behind the scenes. A lot of these people you think are your friends are here to pull the wool over your eyes, to misguide you. Sorry if that hurts, but I speak my mind.
So why am I still posting here. The same reason I've always come here. To find legit people ... while I run my numerical analysis simulations in the background, LOL
Global Free Energy in 2009!
PL
p.s., Please copy all of the pages at my website. You may need them in a few months. Please! If by infinitesimal chance I don't make it over the next few months, then it's up to all of you folks. I don't know why, but all of a sudden today the router has been under a heavy attack, and just broke through. My ZoneAlarm is now giving me warnings every 30 seconds or so. Since 1997 I've been a SA on unix servers, so I know a thing or two about PC & Internet security.
-
Congratulations PL, but we need to develop more devices and techniques.
Video showing how the device works
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=47082727717444502&hl=es
-
Some calculations to determine the COP.
Information Needed to determine the COP:
Example 1-> 250 Volts, 3000 microfarads, 1 MHz. The battery can be a simple 1.5 Volt battery. But in that case we need to add a voltage multiplier or a transformer to increase from 1.5 to 250 V and charge the caps.
1) Capacitor Voltage: 250 Volts
2) Capacitor Farads: 3000 microfarads = 0.003 Farads
3) Switching Time: 1.000.000 Hz = 0,000001 secs
Q = C x V Q = 0.003 x 250 = 0.75 C
W = (Q x V) / 2 W = 0.75 x 250 = 93.75 J
P = W / T..... T = W / P
Can the device run a 50,000 Watt device?
T = W / P T = 93.75 / 50.000 = 0,001875 secs
We can pulse the battery up to 0,000001 secs
0,001875 secs < 0,000001 secs so we can run a 50.000 Watt device using the battery.
The maximum energy using this configuration (250V@3000 microfarads, 1 Mhz, 1 AA battery) is around 75.000 Watt.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the calculations are correct.
-
Magnethos,
What I'm doing is using well-established mathematical equations from conventional physics. I have no clue what you all of your numbers come from, or what theory it is based on, but in your video you talk about energy from the vacuum.
People should know the difference -->
1. My quest is to capture ambient thermal energy that exists in all matter, all the time. I've used a well established magnetics software, FEMM, that uses well established conventional physics that shows my designs have a gain in energy per cycle.
2. Your quest is to capture energy from the vacuum. There is no conventional mathematics that shows how this is possible.
So my research is no longer a theory, as it is based on well established conventional physics mathematics.
PL
-
Paul,
I'm very surprised and happy that anyone (you) have developed a free energy, overunity... call it as you want, energy device. That is a very good news for all the entire community. I'm waiting to see the tests of your device in the next months.
The theory is about the relaxation time constant in a conductor. That theory is well stablished in conventional physics, maybe a little uncommon but that theory is explained in common physics.
In the project, I'm showing a way to extract pure voltage from the battery. Again, this "advantage" is based in the Relaxation Time theory, based in common physics. We know if we don't extract current from the battery, we will have an unlimited source of energy. Of course, there is a degradation of the battery in the Years, but we can replace the battery each 3 or 4 years and the problem will be resolved.
The voltage in a battery is infinite. So, I think the dipole is getting potential continously from somewhere and I think the potential comes from the vacuum. Maybe the potential comes from another source. But we know the voltage in a battery is infinite and we can extract all the voltage we want from the dipole without discharging the battery.
This quest is to capture pure voltage from the battery, not directly from the vacuum.
-
The theory is about the relaxation time constant in a conductor. That theory is well stablished in conventional physics, maybe a little uncommon but that theory is explained in common physics.
In the project, I'm showing a way to extract pure voltage from the battery. Again, this "advantage" is based in the Relaxation Time theory, based in common physics. We know if we don't extract current from the battery, we will have an unlimited source of energy. Of course, there is a degradation of the battery in the Years, but we can replace the battery each 3 or 4 years and the problem will be resolved.
The voltage in a battery is infinite. So, I think the dipole is getting potential continously from somewhere and I think the potential comes from the vacuum. Maybe the potential comes from another source. But we know the voltage in a battery is infinite and we can extract all the voltage we want from the dipole without discharging the battery.
This quest is to capture pure voltage from the battery, not directly from the vacuum.
That's fine and good, but please see this from my point of view. Every time I post my research it seems that somehow it gets distracted. I'm using conventional mathematics the entire way in the entire step-by-step process for my design. FEMM is doing every step of my machine for the entire cycle, as the current increases, etc. etc., FEMM is considering everything, and the end results in FEMM shows extra energy. Can you show the same? FEMM also does electric problems. Yes, relaxation is conventional physics, but that's light years away from covering all of your claims in your theory. You would need to go over every step in extreme detail using a numerical mathematical analysis software to see the results.
My point is, why have people work on an unproven theory when my research is complete, entirely based on conventional physics, and verified by one of the most well-established magnetics software, FEMM. Why would you say to everyone --> "Congratulations PL, but we need to develop more devices and techniques." I have taken my research as far as it can go in terms of conventional physics. Why have everyone start working on an unproven theory when I have already competed my research. It's now only a matter of time to tweak my Free Energy design #3 so the energy gain per cycle is greater than the losses in transistors and wire resistance.
PL
-
Paul,
All the theory you have explained it's correct, in theory. I think my theory or pseudo-theory it's correct too. But I think you haven't built the device yet. And I haven't built "my" device neither.
Nature hasn't read our physics text books. She can't adapt to us, we must adapt to her.
So the best thing we can do is to build our devices and test and see what really happens. Maybe we're discussing 2 big solutions and we're spending too much time discussing if your or my theory are ok or not.
So, as God said. Go and turn your words into facts. I will do it too.
-
I've verified the popular and well-established magnetics software, FEMM, with real measurements. So far it has been very accurate. Perhaps that's why it's called "conventional physics," because it's been heavily tested for decades under various conditions and proven to be accurate so far.
So a theory is not a theory. Some theories are rock solid to date-- conventional physics. Also, there's a big difference between writing down a lot of mathematics on paper, and using a well established numerical mathematical analysis software such as FEMM. Tom Bearden has tons of paper mathematics, and my hats off to Tom for trying, but that's not so impressive because it's untested. FEMM, on the other hand, is well tested.
Posting here is not always a waste of time. As I have FEMM sims running in the background, sometimes I'll come here in hopes that as many people as possible will copy my website that contains my designs and science. Nobody lives forever. If something happened to me, then I just cross my fingers *someone* will take my research to the final remaining few yards. So close!!!
PL
-
Hello Honoured Profiles and The Honoured Administrator of This The Honourable OU-Forum !
I am NOT a Physics Leviathan arising with my Elder Times Chalkboard & Formulas Pergament Rolls for to shout against NewTimes Novel Ideas.......though I kindly have to write this brief Comment :
##If present is a Serially connected Circuit of an IDEAL REGULAR PROPERTIES TYPES COIL ,
of an IDEAL REGULAR PROPERTIES TYPES CAPACITOR , of an IDEAL REGULAR EMF-DC-Source
capable of "letting" through AC-oscillatory Currents....................and a "Mechanical on/off-Switch".........though NOT any socalled Electronics Flyback-diode.....
THÉN WHEN SWITCHED-ON there are some "closely defined" Relations between the obtainable "Amplitudes"-Values for i.e. the Capacitor´s PEAK-Voltage , the Current(t) through Coil and related to the EMF-DC-Source´s Own "Supply-voltage"............a COMMON LC-serially-AC-oscillatory-"pendling" of ESTABLISHED U(t)-I(t)-values......THOUGH WHEN i.e. Switched-OFF at Current-Max through Coil , Thén an "arcing" in the SWitch-air-gap "short-while" forms letting the quickly-nullified-current i Coil be Charging-equivalently the Condenser to a Voltage DEPENDING on the LC-U(t)-I(t)-oscillatory-OFF-Time-Conditions (from the THEN PAST ON-Circuit).........!
If else NOT are any "connections"-reversal of Capacitor´s Wires or else of altered EMF-Source´s Voltage ,etc, THÉN there IS a specified IDEAL RELATIONS LIMIT of Voltages-built-up in the Capacitor !
Might I kindly soon briefly comment about the OTHER promoted discussions Theme : "Blocking-Oscillator to supply Blocking Oscillator......." !
WKR & have Yourselves a nice Day and Fruitfull Researching Results ! My kind Thanks about Your All important interesting Contributions to The Honourable Course of OU !
-
I *will* have a self-running machine that produces usable amounts of power by the end of this year. The mathematics is from well-established conventional physics. It is very clear. It matches my magnetic theory. I took my magnetic theory, made a design in FEMM, ran the sim, and FEMM numbers came back in agreement with my magnetic theory. It will work!
Thank's Paul
a self-running machine that produces usable amounts of power by the end of this year
I Hope it's not another ROLL ON THE END OF [year] thread
Sorry but you remind me of a Politician
Your knowledge is far greater than mine and i am learning a lot thanks
all the best in the future
cat
-
Can someone just post the proper circuit that was used on the youtube clips.
Every drawing seems to be different all the time?
The guy shorts 3 wires together and uses only one cap that charges.
If somebody makes me a proper drawing that is unanimously agreed on, then i'll spend time on it and do whatever anyone wants...make video's ect....but PLEASE...let's have a drawing of the circuit that is agreed on first?
Some drawings say to use 2 caps...some show one cap, but only 2 wires shorted?
There needs to be one cap and 3 wires shorted!
Scotty.
-
@Paul: although your work on diode arrays is commendable,
and I do believe you are corrct that such a device would be a great
"free" energy source,
I also am not sure if you can actually stake the claim that it is
your diode array invention...
After all, the concept of using highly sensitive diodes in an array
coupled to capacitors, in order to "capture" ambient noise,
is quite an old idea.
And in a way a variation of the concept of solar cells.
I see you post things now and then in which you seem to be
proclaiming yourself the inventor of such diode arrays,
but that's not really true...
Yes, you are one of the few to really document the ambient
noise collection scheme and present output figures based
on your experiments with your version of such an array,
I do not argue that, and in fact I do find that very impressive
and a great job on your part. :)
So keep it up eh :)
regards,
Koen
-
@Paul: although your work on diode arrays is commendable,
and I do believe you are corrct that such a device would be a great
"free" energy source,
I also am not sure if you can actually stake the claim that it is
your diode array invention...
After all, the concept of using highly sensitive diodes in an array
coupled to capacitors, in order to "capture" ambient noise,
is quite an old idea.
And in a way a variation of the concept of solar cells.
I see you post things now and then in which you seem to be
proclaiming yourself the inventor of such diode arrays,
but that's not really true...
Yes, you are one of the few to really document the ambient
noise collection scheme and present output figures based
on your experiments with your version of such an array,
I do not argue that, and in fact I do find that very impressive
and a great job on your part. :)
So keep it up eh :)
regards,
Koen
Koen,
I never said that. ***Please*** *first* read what I write before commenting on me. Here's my quote -->
February 27, 2009, 12:02:06 AM
For over one year I've had the first documented and properly tested "free energy" machine that includes the extreme details, including part #'s, to build.
And please see the date on my quote, which is way before your post. I clearly said my diode array is the first *******properly documented******* "free energy" generator that includes every detail to replicate.! You cannot name anyone who has provided sufficient proof. Tom Schum did not complete his measurements because he did not prove that the DC voltage he was measuring was due to external radio signals. I spent ages testing my diode array in up to three complete layers of metal shielding in countless rural areas to show that the location made no difference, that the DC voltage was due to the internal diodes. Charles M. Brown has far less completed evidence than Tom Schum.
Furthermore, I've spent what seemed ages on the mathematical end, which resulted in two software tools where the user enters the parameters of the diode, and the software utilizes the best diode modeling equations based on conventional semiconductor physics, which is based on Quantum Physics. I ported my software to javascript on two web pages -->
Custom Diode Designer:
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/tools/customdiodedesigner/
The Custom Diode Designer is based on Quantum Physics, and is for designing new diodes. The user picks the dopant type (e.g., n-type), then the semiconductor (e.g., Gallium Antimonide), then the contact metal (e.g., Palladium), then the dopant density, then the diode plate dimensions. Go ahead and try the default diode parameters I have in there when the web page comes up. You'll see it predicts the diode array will produce 104.7 watts.
The other software is Diode NATE, which is for preexisting diodes, so you enter junction capacitance, emission coefficient, and total diodes in-series.
Diode NATE:
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/tools/diodenate/
Then see the conventional semiconductor mathematics based on Quantum Physics that I go over -->
The Dirty Details:
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/physics/dirtydetails/
And other science pages that cover every concern -->
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/forum/index.php?board=85.0
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/physics/
And over two years of extensive measurements -->
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/forum/index.php?board=66.0
And the details how to replicate my diode array -->
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/forum/index.php?board=72.0
And details how to actually build semiconductor fabrication equipment that will allow someone to build microscopic diode array chips that would produce usable amounts of power, and it would allow one build solar cells -->
http://greenselfreliantenergy.com/forum/index.php?board=70.0
So I'll say it again, my diode array is the first properly documented "free energy" generator that includes every detail to replicate.!
PL
-
Can someone just post the proper circuit that was used on the youtube clips.
Every drawing seems to be different all the time?
The guy shorts 3 wires together and uses only one cap that charges.
If somebody makes me a proper drawing that is unanimously agreed on, then i'll spend time on it and do whatever anyone wants...make video's ect....but PLEASE...let's have a drawing of the circuit that is agreed on first?
Some drawings say to use 2 caps...some show one cap, but only 2 wires shorted?
There needs to be one cap and 3 wires shorted!
Scotty.
You can ask the guy who created the video to be certain, but as far as I can tell it's just a charged large capacitance capacitor that is connected to a custom built bifilar ferrite core coil for a very short period of time by tapped a clip lead to a metal plate. The secondary coil on the bifilar is connected to a capacitor of small capacitance, and I presume there's a diode in the secondary circuit for obvious reasons.
Please know that you just can't build a bifilar coil and expect to get his results. Either his large blue cap is significantly less than 7500uF (perhaps partially damaged), or dielectric absorption (relaxation) is the cause for error in voltage readings, or just got astronomically lucky in the way he wound his bifilar coil.
PL
-
You can ask the guy who created the video to be certain, but as far as I can tell it's just a charged large capacitance capacitor that is connected to a custom built bifilar ferrite core coil for a very short period of time by tapped a clip lead to a metal plate. The secondary coil on the bifilar is connected to a capacitor of small capacitance, and I presume there's a diode in the secondary circuit for obvious reasons.
There are no diodes, or semiconductors involved in my circuit for the obvious reason, they require energy to operate.
Please know that you just can't build a bifilar coil and expect to get his results. Either his large blue cap is significantly less than 7500uF (perhaps partially damaged), or dielectric absorption (relaxation) is the cause for error in voltage readings, or just got astronomically lucky in the way he wound his bifilar coil.
PL
The Coil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbdP8ntnb4
-
Can someone just post the proper circuit that was used on the youtube clips.
Every drawing seems to be different all the time?
The guy shorts 3 wires together and uses only one cap that charges.
If somebody makes me a proper drawing that is unanimously agreed on, then i'll spend time on it and do whatever anyone wants...make video's ect....but PLEASE...let's have a drawing of the circuit that is agreed on first?
Some drawings say to use 2 caps...some show one cap, but only 2 wires shorted?
There needs to be one cap and 3 wires shorted!
Scotty.
Here Scotty.
-
Interesting, different than I thought. :o But thanks for sharing it! BTW, what is the inductance of the coil? By the proposed theory, the main purpose of the coil is to increase the relaxation time?
Here Scotty.
-
Here is the circuit diagram a bit better to see.
I deleted the part to discharge the right cap, cause it
confuses too much.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Here is the other circuit from user STARK.
-
Thanks Harti.....but too late for me... ;D
I sat down and worked it out myself.....
In the end I come up with the same circuit as your first diagram...later i'll test the other one.
Here is what I did.
I used my magnet motor to charge a 25V cap ;D.....then I shorted the 2 wires to the metal plate.
My load cap charged to about 150v on average, with a 1V drop on the 25V supply cap.
Sometimes I got around 300V but not when I was filming...of course..(around 2 or 3 V drop of source)
I tried many coils and found that the low ohm coils worked best.
The 2 coils I used have 4 ohms each...1500 turns of 16g wire.
I made a video but it is still processing so here is the link to my you tube channel.
The clip should be available soon.
http://www.youtube.com/scotty7129 (http://www.youtube.com/scotty7129)
Something I noticed was that the test worked best when the timing of the short matched the rise time of the coil......because I've used these coils loads of times I know how long they take to reach their peak....that is how I got some 300V readings....but I lost about 2 or 3 volts on the source cap.
BTW..thanks to Magnethos for taking time to mail me.
Tomorrow i'll make some tests without the "split pos" that i used this time.
Scotty.
-
Thanks Harti.....but too late for me... ;D
I sat down and worked it out myself.....
In the end I come up with the same circuit as your first diagram...later i'll test the other one.
Here is what I did.
I used my magnet motor to charge a 25V cap ;D.....then I shorted the 2 wires to the metal plate.
My load cap charged to about 150v on average, with a 1V drop on the 25V supply cap.
Sometimes I got around 300V but not when I was filming...of course..(around 2 or 3 V drop of source)
I tried many coils and found that the low ohm coils worked best.
The 2 coils I used have 4 ohms each...1500 turns of 16g wire.
I made a video but it is still processing so here is the link to my you tube channel.
The clip should be available soon.
http://www.youtube.com/scotty7129 (http://www.youtube.com/scotty7129)
Something I noticed was that the test worked best when the timing of the short matched the rise time of the coil......because I've used these coils loads of times I know how long they take to reach their peak....that is how I got some 300V readings....but I lost about 2 or 3 volts on the source cap.
BTW..thanks to Magnethos for taking time to mail me.
Tomorrow i'll make some tests without the "split pos" that i used this time.
Scotty.
You forgot to mention the capacities of both the capacitors. Please let us know.
Waiting for the vid.
-
There are no diodes, or semiconductors involved in my circuit for the obvious reason, they require energy to operate.
Semiconductors are far better, for obvious reasons. They can switch far faster than you, and have better timing. Your circuit would be more efficient if you used a timer and MOSFET.
Not sure why you call it a bifilar coil. Looks like a single strand of wire.
IMO there's nothing special here. Just either your large cap is far less than 7500uF (partially damaged), or the dielectric absorption is not being considered. Perhaps you could measure the capacitance. Just discharge the cap, place an appropriate resistor in series with the cap, connect the battery to it for a certain time (time it), and then measure the DC voltage. Here's an RC time constant calculator -->
http://www.cvs1.uklinux.net/cgi-bin/calculators/time_const.cgi
PL
-
You forgot to mention the capacities of both the capacitors. Please let us know.
Waiting for the vid.
Yes, I noticed that too. His video shows two caps, large and small, and a supply, but his circuit shows one cap, LOL. After his post I quickly saw what's happening here, and decide to forget about this case.
PL
-
Here is the circuit diagram a bit better to see.
I deleted the part to discharge the right cap, cause it
confuses too much.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
That circuit you posted is incorrect!
The part you deleted is not just used to discharge the cap, its used to charge it also.
If people are going to try and replicate the experiment then they need to use the circuit I posted, exactly how I posted it.
Let me draw it this way so there is no confusion.
-
Semiconductors are far better, for obvious reasons. They can switch far faster than you, and have better timing. Your circuit would be more efficient if you used a timer and MOSFET.
You are correct about semiconductors being far better at switching than a person, however they still consume energy to operate. You stated yourself that overcoming the losses in your own circuit was a challenge. This is the sole reason I do not use them in my circuit.
Not sure why you call it a bifilar coil. Looks like a single strand of wire.
There are 2 wires tied together at the ends and wrapped side by side around the core. There is a reason behind that construction, but you cannot understand it with conventional wisdom.
-
NRGFromTheV,
Aren't you interested in measuring the capacitance of your capacitors? IMO this might help solve all of this. Rapid discharging such large electrolytics can slowly damage them over time. So even though the label might say 7500uF, it could be 6000uF. In one of my recent posts in this thread I gave you the simple directions how to measure the capacitance. If you need help figuring out the appropriate resistance for the resistor then let me know.
BTW, the best efficiency I've seen so far is 123%. The calculations that Stefan gave was unusable IMO because the blue cap DC voltage only changed by 0.01V ! That's insufficient resolution.
PL
-
To be clear, the capacitance of both caps should be measured immediately after using them in the experiments. So go ahead and do your spark experiment to get the before and after DC voltages, then use the following method to measure the capacitance of the blue cap then the gray cap -->
Discharge the cap. Place a battery across a resistor and capacitor for a certain time (time it), and then measure the DC voltage. So you'll have a resistor in-series with the capacitor. This is an RC circuit. Here's an RC time constant calculator -->
http://www.cvs1.uklinux.net/cgi-bin/calculators/time_const.cgi
PL
-
To be clear, the capacitance of both caps should be measured immediately after using them in the experiments. So go ahead and do your spark experiment to get the before and after DC voltages, then use the following method to measure the capacitance of the blue cap then the gray cap -->
Discharge the cap. Place a battery across a resistor and capacitor for a certain time (time it), and then measure the DC voltage. So you'll have a resistor in-series with the capacitor. This is an RC circuit. Here's an RC time constant calculator -->
http://www.cvs1.uklinux.net/cgi-bin/calculators/time_const.cgi
PL
Paul,
I measured my capacitors on a calibrated Keithley meter at my work.
The Blue cap is a bit over 7500uF actually it measures at 7,725uF
The Grey cap also measures over the written value 32.10uF vs 30uF.
Keep in mind I fill both capacitors with Dirac Sea Holes on occasion, so they preform a little different then standard capacitors charged with electrons.
-
The Blue cap is a bit over 7500uF actually it measures at 7,725uF
The Grey cap also measures over the written value 32.10uF vs 30uF.
I never heard about that in your videos. Why not tell us the whole story at once. :) Anyhow, that answers half of it. Dielectric relaxation is significant in electrolytic caps, which is why I wrote to *immediately* measure the capacitance after doing your spark tests.
PL
To be clear, the capacitance of both caps should be measured immediately after using them in the experiments.
-
Here is my clip.
I used my magnet motor to charge my source cap...no batteries used at all.
Batteries are not balanced right anyway......they have more pos than neg in them mostly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik)
I'll just act as a neutral tester and you guy's can tell me what to do.
I have loads of equipment, caps, coils ect.
That way there can be no bias in the testing.
cheers
Scotty.
-
Here is my clip.
I used my magnet motor to charge my source cap...no batteries used at all.
Batteries are not balanced right anyway......they have more pos than neg in them mostly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik)
I'll just act as a neutral tester and you guy's can tell me what to do.
I have loads of equipment, caps, coils ect.
That way there can be no bias in the testing.
cheers
Scotty.
Great video, nice results you built the circuit perfectly.
Now you should try it with different coil configurations and capacitors, see what happens...
-
I tried different coils and as i said earlier, I found that I get best results with low ohm coils.
Also, I noticed the rise time of the coil was important, meaning that if I matched the on pulse to the rise time of my coils I would get 300Volts in the load cap, but I would loose more than 1V on the source cap....so my setup would be better with less wire on the coils.
I tried other higher resistance coils but they only acted as a resistance and that was it.
I also used an old motor stator coil/ iron ring and that worked ok too.
Next I think I'll use the coils of my magnet motor, which are enclosed in a super strong magnetic field.
Maybe I can get an added back spike?
Scotty.
-
Here is my clip.
I used my magnet motor to charge my source cap...no batteries used at all.
Batteries are not balanced right anyway......they have more pos than neg in them mostly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km8zBsN41Ik)
I'll just act as a neutral tester and you guy's can tell me what to do.
I have loads of equipment, caps, coils ect.
That way there can be no bias in the testing.
cheers
Scotty.
Scotty,
Just please make sure you measure the capacitance immediately after doing the spark experiment, and may as well measure the capacitance immediately before.
It's far more difficult to tap into the "free energy" than using such large wire laminated steel core than shown in that video, and it requires extremely fast pulsing that you just cannot get with sparks. The steel wire in the laminated core needs to be far less than 35mils. 35mils is very thin MIG wire, and even it's far too thick. Not sure what he's using in the video, but it's very thick stuff, like a good size nail. "Free energy" is possible, but I'd bet the farm you'll get less than 100% efficiency if you take correct measurements.
PL
-
Out of all the present claims of developed & working "free energy" machines on this site, this seems to be the only valid one at the time.
So - you think this is a true working 'free energy machine'.
And the only one?
What about your diode array? You're now saying that's not free energy.
It's the *only* way he's going to achieve "free energy," and that's exactly what he's using, a bifilar ferrite core.
But on closer inspection, you later determined it was NOT a bifilar coil - so, according to you, free energy in this example would be impossible.
I've answered all of the questions how to build a "free energy" machine at my website -->
You hype your site alot. Are you in need of additional page views to ramp-up your ad fees?
I think there's going to be a lot of people out of monthly posting paychecks by end of 2009. By 2010 there will be no need for this website. :)
So your 'discoveries' will kill this website?
At my website I just posted the Grand Magnetic Equation -->
http://globalfreeenergy.
How many plugs have you given for your website on THIS website? Hundreds!!
For over one year I've had the first documented and properly tested "free energy" machine that includes the extreme details, including part #'s, to build.........
Make no mistake. My diode research is the thing of the past, and I *will* have a self-running machine that produces usable amounts of power by the end of this year.....
So you've had proof of OU but it's just that no one will listen? And another YEAR to actually build it??
My point is, why have people work on an unproven theory when my research is complete.
Why have everyone start working on an unproven theory when I have already competed my research. It's now only a matter of time to tweak my Free Energy design #3 so the energy gain per cycle is greater than the losses in transistors and wire resistance.
So, you're now saying:
'why are you meatheads trying such stupid stuff that's unproven when you should be working on my stuff that's ...ahem.. 'real'!!
And you don't have just ONE free energy design, but THREE??
So I'll say it again, my diode array is the first properly documented "free energy" generator that includes every detail to replicate.!
Yowza! I guess there will be free energy machines in every household before you know it! Quick, go to his site and learn how!
IMO there's nothing special here. Just either your large cap is far less than 7500uF (partially damaged), or the dielectric absorption is not being considered.
So - after all of you ....words... you are now giving your opinion that:
THERE"S NOTHING SPECIAL HERE.
Are you bi-polar, or did it just take you awhile to reverse your position?
"Free energy" is possible, but I'd bet the farm you'll get less than 100% efficiency if you take correct measurements.
From bashing the sceptics to becoming a sceptic yourself. All within a few days. Neato.
-
So - you think this is a true working 'free energy machine'.
And the only one?
What about your diode array? You're now saying that's not free energy.
I was not referring to my own research. I could just imagine you saying, "Hello, anyone here. I guess nobody is here." Gee, I guess you don't count yourself. You have some odd emotional logic.
But on closer inspection, you later determined it was NOT a bifilar coil - so, according to you, free energy in this example would be impossible.
Try reading. I never said that.
You hype your site alot. Are you in need of additional page views to ramp-up your ad fees?
Get some glasses. I have never placed a single ad on any of my research websites.
So you've had proof of OU but it's just that no one will listen? And another YEAR to actually build it??
I get a lot emails from interested people.
So - after all of you ....words... you are now giving your opinion that:
THERE"S NOTHING SPECIAL HERE.
Are you bi-polar, or did it just take you awhile to reverse your position?
From bashing the sceptics to becoming a sceptic yourself. All within a few days. Neato.
Why don't you wake up and perceive what took place. I was correcting incorrect claims, such as when someone claimed the cap would just immediately short out because of the "4 ohms" resistance. That's not the case because of inductance.
I have said from the start that it's either legit "free energy," or it's due to dielectric absorption, or due to damaged capacitor. Not once did I say it was a legit "free energy" machine. I have clearly taken the path of "truth seeking." I gave the guy the chance-- being unbiased. After analyzing the claim, it is now my opinion it's not "free energy." I guess that's too much for you to grasp all at once? ;D
PL
-
Hi everyone
i think we should help one another instead of discussing senseless story, i see that there are sirious experimenter here that really gives everything and i salutes you guys ;)
and instead of fighting just smile something like this ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Next I think I'll use the coils of my magnet motor, which are enclosed in a super strong magnetic field.
Maybe I can get an added back spike?
Scotty.
Are you saying the coil your going to try is constantly being influenced by a permanent magnetic field?
Here's some tips.
The point of the magnetic core in the coil is to trap the magnetic component of electricity, so only the field of potential is free to influence the coil.
Just as Tesla did we are trying to shuttle potentials from one place to the next. Each time you do this you gain energy in the form of a voltage potential.
Try taking the energy stored in the first (source) capacitor and short it through the primary of a high voltage transformer. Then take the energy stored in the secondary capacitor and short it through the primary of the high voltage transformer. Look and see which one works best.
-
Paul..you did say about the coil not being bifiler, but there is clearly 4 wires coming out of NRG's coil.
I used NRG's clip to make my circuit diagram...very slowly i watched and copied his wires until i had it done.
As most here would know....I study Leedskalnin and his theory.
The common electromagnetic theory has no value to me, and I don't care at all about so called electrons.....I've already re-written everything... ;D
I'm just here to offer a non bias (No offense NRG) test bed that other team players might utilise.
NRG has made clips with the source as a cap because people asked him too.
If i told you what i thought was happening you wouldn't even understand a word i say.
----------------------
Before the North and South pole individual magnets run in the wire...they are pointed accros the wire.
When the individual North and South pole magnets run in the wire lengthways, they are in a slanted position.
Scotty. ;D
-
Scotty,
Thanks a lot for the clear vid. I wish everyone makes such clear vids, we can reach conclusions fast.
Your source cap is 49000 uF, and it had 25 V
Input energy = 0.5 * 49 000 * (10^(-6)) * (25^2) = 15.3125 Joules (half C times V square)
Load cap is 10 uF, and it got 196 V max
Output energy = 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (196^2) = 0.19208 Joules
Efficiency = Output/Input = 0.19208 / 15.3125 = 0.012544 that is way underunity.
Remember, all newbies - volts dont mean energy.
Sorry no OU here, I must move on. :D
-
Paul..you did say about the coil not being bifiler, but there is clearly 4 wires coming out of NRG's coil.
I'm always amazed how easily people can make themselves believe something that's untrue. Here's my quote -->
Not sure why you call it a bifilar coil. Looks like a single strand of wire.
So where did I say it's *not* a bifilar coil???
PL
-
Your source cap is 49000 uF, and it had 25 V
Input energy = 0.5 * 49 000 * (10^(-6)) * (25^2) = 15.3125 Joules (half C times V square)
Load cap is 10 uF, and it got 196 V max
Output energy = 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (196^2) = 0.19208 Joules
Efficiency = Output/Input = 0.19208 / 15.3125 = 0.012544 that is way underunity.
Remember, all newbies - volts dont mean energy.
Sorry no OU here, I must move on. :D
My calculations of one of NRG's measurements in his video shows 123% efficiency. Even though this has not been cleared up, the reason I now believe this is not "free energy" is because of seeing further details of his core, and for other very good reasons that I'm not going to openly discuss at the moment. Legit researchers should know what's happening in this "free energy" case. It's a classical case.
PL
-
Scotty,
Thanks a lot for the clear vid. I wish everyone makes such clear vids, we can reach conclusions fast.
Your source cap is 49000 uF, and it had 25 V
Input energy = 0.5 * 49 000 * (10^(-6)) * (25^2) = 15.3125 Joules (half C times V square)
Load cap is 10 uF, and it got 196 V max
Output energy = 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (196^2) = 0.19208 Joules
Efficiency = Output/Input = 0.19208 / 15.3125 = 0.012544 that is way underunity.
Remember, all newbies - volts dont mean energy.
Sorry no OU here, I must move on. :D
@Omega_0
Hi, do not be so fast...
Scotty mentioned in his video and also wrote here that the voltage level he consumed from the 25V was between 1 to 3V, is that right? So there was 22-24V still left in the 49000uF capacitor. It is true he furnished in 15.31 Joule when he charged it up but consumed only much less from it, the rest remained in his capacitor, he did not use it for getting more output within one particular test. Do you agree with this?
Now if we figure out the input power consumed from the capacitor, we receive the followings:
1) when 1V was used up, the used energy hence the input energy was 0.049/2=0.0245J and even if we consider only 150V was collected in the 10uF, the output energy was 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (150^2) = 0.1125 J Efficiency or rather let's call it coefficience of performance, COP: 0.1125/0.0245=4.59
2) when 2V was consumed from the 25V, the input energy used was (0.049*2*2)/2=0.098 J and still using the conservative 150V received in the 10uF, the output energy was 0.1125 J, the COP was 0.1125/0.098=1.14
3) when 3V was consumed from the 25V, the input energy used was (0.049*3*3)/2=0.2205 J and now using the 196V (but remember Scotty mentioned higher than this voltage received when he lost 2-3V from the 25V) the output energy in the 10uF was like you calculated already: 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (196^2) = 0.19208 J the COP was 0.19208/0.2205=0.871 this is indeed underunity.
If the output voltage in the 10uF capacitor reaches 210V or higher (instead of the 196V) while only 3V is consumed from the 25V in the 49000uF capacitor, then a COP of 1 or higher is involved. Scotty mentioned getting 300V in cases? when the voltage loss was 3V or around that?
I know the best case would be to find that when the 49000uF input capacitor is charged up to 3 or max 3.5V you could still receive over 230-280V in the 10uF; or maybe continue with several 10uF capacitors to collect further 200V+ voltages in as many capacitors as possible to consume fully the 25V input voltage in the input capacitor, one after the other.
So is it really underunity, I wonder?
regards, Gyula
-
Hi everyone,
I could not resist to test this ;D
http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test
I did not find any effects that favored over unity :(... but that would not mean that NRG's claim is not correct!... I just was not able to replicate what he claims.
Luc
-
@Omega_0
Hi, do not be so fast...
Scotty mentioned in his video and also wrote here that the voltage level he consumed from the 25V was between 1 to 3V, is that right? So there was 22-24V still left in the 49000uF capacitor. It is true he furnished in 15.31 Joule when he charged it up but consumed only much less from it, the rest remained in his capacitor, he did not use it for getting more output within one particular test. Do you agree with this?
Now if we figure out the input power consumed from the capacitor, we receive the followings:
1) when 1V was used up, the used energy hence the input energy was 0.049/2=0.0245J and even if we consider only 150V was collected in the 10uF, the output energy was 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (150^2) = 0.1125 J Efficiency or rather let's call it coefficience of performance, COP: 0.1125/0.0245=4.59
2) when 2V was consumed from the 25V, the input energy used was (0.049*2*2)/2=0.098 J and still using the conservative 150V received in the 10uF, the output energy was 0.1125 J, the COP was 0.1125/0.098=1.14
3) when 3V was consumed from the 25V, the input energy used was (0.049*3*3)/2=0.2205 J and now using the 196V (but remember Scotty mentioned higher than this voltage received when he lost 2-3V from the 25V) the output energy in the 10uF was like you calculated already: 0.5 * 10 * (10^(-6)) * (196^2) = 0.19208 J the COP was 0.19208/0.2205=0.871 this is indeed underunity.
If the output voltage in the 10uF capacitor reaches 210V or higher (instead of the 196V) while only 3V is consumed from the 25V in the 49000uF capacitor, then a COP of 1 or higher is involved. Scotty mentioned getting 300V in cases? when the voltage loss was 3V or around that?
I know the best case would be to find that when the 49000uF input capacitor is charged up to 3 or max 3.5V you could still receive over 230-280V in the 10uF; or maybe continue with several 10uF capacitors to collect further 200V+ voltages in as many capacitors as possible to consume fully the 25V input voltage in the input capacitor, one after the other.
So is it really underunity, I wonder?
regards, Gyula
Gyula, you managed to confuse me there and for a second I thought its indeed overunity :)
Now, your mistake (as you have noted in the last para) is to take that 1 V drop as the INPUT. The real input is the energy generated by his 'magnet motor' or whatever it is. He could have used a battery or any other source, and the energy consumed out of that source is the real input.
To show real OU, scotty (or anyone who cares) needs to demo a setup which starts from 1V and still manages to get the other cap to 150 V.
Or he can try using identical caps and also measure the capacitance after the experiment not relying on their printed value.
So again , please see my calculation and I shall word it differently this time, from a wider perspective:
Energy in the system before shorting the connectors : 15.3 Joules
Energy in the system after shorting the connectors : 0.19208 Joules + (0.5 * 49 000 * (10^(-6)) * 24 * 24) = 14.30408 Joules
Where the last term is energy remaining in the 49000 uF cap with a voltage of say 24 V....
No gain.....
This circuit just re-distributes the energy and in the process loses a lot of it. Its like connecting two dis-similar charged capacitors together (through a coil) and disconnecting them before steady state is reached. Thats all it is.
-
You people enjoy using conventional capacitor equations. Don't limit yourself. Conventional magnetic equations show a gain of energy per cycle by means of magnetic viscosity and a change in *effective* permeability -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info
It's my hope that any legit people who post at this site will begin to realize that the odds of creating your own custom physics theory that can outdo present conventional physics (predict almost all known effects from the macro down to the sub-atomic), and that predicts more than conventional physics, perhaps some cool aether theory, is slim and none. I should know because in my early twenties I formulated two fantasy aether theories. Oh, they looked awesome at the time, LOL. I used some math, a lot of arm waving. People don't have a clue how many hundreds of thousands of effects and unique situations such theories must predict to even be equal to a conventional physics.
Conventional mathematics is all that's required to successfully produce a "free energy" machine. It's by far the quickest path, and I've already discovered it, and posted the details on my website. And no, I don't sell advertisement. I have always and will continue to refuse to accept any amount of money for this research. Just one remaining goal needs to be worked out-- searching for the exact materials and final design that will overcome all of the losses involved to make a self-running machine.
Conventional physics is not bad. It's not perfect, but no theory is perfect. The problem has been that conventional scientists have falsely believed 2LoT is a law. My diode research proved that 2LoT is a tendency. My trapdoor simulations consisting of particles clearly showed me how 2LoT is a tendency.
You don't need a college degree to do this technology. You don't need good spelling skills. You don't need good grammar. You don't need to know political science, geology, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology, etc. etc. It should take someone less than a 1/2 year to learn nearly everything to do this research. It is guaranteed path!!
PL
-
...
Energy in the system before shorting the connectors : 15.3 Joules
Energy in the system after shorting the connectors : 0.19208 Joules + (0.5 * 49 000 * (10^(-6)) * 24 * 24) = 14.30408 Joules
Where the last term is energy remaining in the 49000 uF cap with a voltage of say 24 V....
No gain.....
...
Hi Omega_0,
Ok, I agree you can consider energy balance like you calculated above.
Maybe some day someone can find a COP>1 setup with this conception.
Thanks, Gyula
-
Hi Omega_0,
Ok, I agree you can consider energy balance like you calculated above.
Maybe some day someone can find a COP>1 setup with this conception.
Thanks, Gyula
Yes, still worth a try.
No one knows what can extract free energy from the vacuum.
-
Some days after researching more in my ideas, (thanks to Paul to doubt about "my" theory)
I have found more evident information that confirms my idea. Anyone can extract free electrical energy from a battery without discharging it.
Common physics have explained us that we need to extract Voltage + Current from the batteries to run any device. That is NOT true. We can extract only pure voltage (electrostatic scalar potential) from any battery. As we know, if we don't extract current, we won't discharge the battery. Voltage is infinite. So we can extract all the pure voltage we want. Then, we need to transform that pure potential (electrostatic electricity) to Electromagnetic energy using the proper process.
The electromagnetic energy (transverse) is the more rare form of energy. The electrostatic (longitudinal) is the most natural form of energy and can be sent throught a 1 wire WITHOUT losses. That electrostatic energy is composed by SUB-atomic particles. For that reason the Zero-Point Energy is called ZPE.
When anyone freeze something to absolute zero, 0 degrees Kelvin, all atomic movement is stopped, but there is still an energy called ZERO-POINT energy. The atomic particles in the absolute Zero, are quiet, but not the SUB-atomic particles (electrostatic scalar potential).
So... YES, we can extract pure potential from any battery without extracting current. Then, that extracted pure voltage can be transformed in electromagnetic energy using the correct technique. ;D
-
When anyone freeze something to absolute zero, 0 degrees Kelvin, all atomic movement is stopped, but there is still an energy called ZERO-POINT energy. The atomic particles in the absolute Zero, are quiet, but not the SUB-atomic particles (electrostatic scalar potential).
That's true, or at least conventional physics agrees. I don't recall the name of the effect off the top of my, but there's a well known effect/experiment that clearly shows the quantum foam, ZPE, prevents particles from being cooled below a certain point.
What I saying about your theory had *nothing* to do with doubt, and was only stating the fact that your theory has not reached to completed phase as my theory has. In my case, the entire process is shown in a verified and well-established mathematical software, FEMM.
I would consider ZPE as part of ambient thermal energy, *but* it is far far far far far more difficult to capture ZPE than the energy contained in moving molecules, atoms, and electrons. For example, if I place a cold piece of metal that is say -100C on the ground on a typical day, then the metal will quickly absorb ambient thermal energy by heating up. Now place that same piece of cold metal in a vacuum out in outerspace in a metal box where there's still ZPE and you'll be hard pressed to get ZPE to do squat.
Sorry, but I just don't get it. It's the weirdest thing why so many people are trying to capture ZPE when it's unimaginably easier to capture common ambient thermal energy. If you want to succeed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime in the next century, then try to capture common ambient thermal energy. It may not be as exciting and sci-fi'ish as working on ZPE, yippie, but it's realistic. Maybe that's the appeal for ZPE, it gives one the feel they are living the life of someone like Tesla. ;D
PL
-
What I saying about your theory had *nothing* to do with doubt, and was only stating the fact that your theory has not reached to completed phase as my theory has. In my case, the entire process is shown in a verified and well-established mathematical software, FEMM.
I'm discussing here "my" theory because I haven't finished it, of course. Because if I finish "my" theory the next step would be to build a device and show it here.
But you... You have finished 1 theory and 3 projects but... What about the devices??
I want to see at least one of your devices running. The theories are very interesting, but if you don't build anything... the theories will be forgotten. So build a device and dont spend an entire YEAR explaining your theory before we can see the device!
I would consider ZPE as part of ambient thermal energy, *but* it is far far far far far more difficult to capture ZPE than the energy contained in moving molecules, atoms, and electrons. For example, if I place a cold piece of metal that is say -100C on the ground on a typical day, then the metal will quickly absorb ambient thermal energy by heating up. Now place that same piece of cold metal in a vacuum out in outerspace in a metal box where there's still ZPE and you'll be hard pressed to get ZPE to do squat.
I call ZPE to electrostatic scalar potential (pure voltage). Do you think that capturing pure voltage from a battery is very very very very very (...) difficult?
In this thread I posted a link with some videos from a youtube guy showing that he was able to extract pure voltage in an easy way. I asked the guy but the guy doesn't connects in youtube for some months.
And I have seen more videos about energy without current. So, I think it won't be as difficult as you say.
Sorry, but I just don't get it. It's the weirdest thing why so many people are trying to capture ZPE when it's unimaginably easier to capture common ambient thermal energy. If you want to succeed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime in the next century.
And you? You say me that if I want to succed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime IN THE NEXT CENTURY?
You have repeated a lot of times that you have mathematically proven in software a "free energy" theory. But... when we will see a prototype? In the next millenium?
-
In this thread I posted a link with some videos from a youtube guy showing that he was able to extract pure voltage in an easy way. I asked the guy but the guy doesn't connects in youtube for some months.
And I have seen more videos about energy without current. So, I think it won't be as difficult as you say.
Well we don't if it's a legit claim or not. Also, if it's legit, then you have no idea where the energy is coming from. For all you know the energy could be from common ambient thermal energy. :)
And you? You say me that if I want to succed in a legit "free energy" machine anytime IN THE NEXT CENTURY?
You have repeated a lot of times that you have mathematically proven in software a "free energy" theory. But... when we will see a prototype? In the next millenium?
If it would take a millennium to make a machine that captures more ambient thermal energy than losses, then it may take a billion years to make the equivalent *ZPE* machine. Besides, I don't agree with you that it would take me millennium. I'm now down to the dirty details-- finding the materials, etc. The difference between me and other people at this forum is that I *refuse* to play guessing guess. My philosophy is to spend a lot longer thinking, and less time building. So when I build my machine, the odds are a lot higher that it will work.
PL
-
evidence of pure voltage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3soSDAJLaL8
I think Van der Graaff gen is another source of pure potential.
Another one: Wimshurst Machine
I'm talking about machines that can draw pure voltage. But they are only examples, because the project is based in a system to get pure voltage from a battery, not using a moving device.
-
evidence of pure voltage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3soSDAJLaL8
I think Van der Graaf gen is another source of pure potential.
I have no idea what you mean by "pure voltage," but there *is* current. There is no way you're going to get sparks without current.
PL
-
Of course, there is a current. But that current is of neutrinos (?) instead a current of electrons.
When I say about pure voltage, I say about electrostatic scalar potential. We don't need to draw current from a battery to get energy. Maybe that pure potential is similar (or is the same) as Radiant Energy. I'm not sure about that.
if you remember the electrical relaxation time in a conductor, in the first period is flowing pure voltage in the circuit and after a very very little time, current starts to flow. If we're able to get that pure voltage from that period, we will be getting energy from the battery without discharging it (because we aren't drawing current).
The energy particle of voltage is SUB-atomic (maybe neutrinos¿?) and the energy particle of current are the electrons. We can get energy from both, voltage+current (electromagnetic, transverse) or pure voltage (electrostatic scalar potential, radiant?)
-
Well we don't if it's a legit claim or not. Also, if it's legit, then you have no idea where the energy is coming from. For all you know the energy could be from common ambient thermal energy. :)
The energy is for a PROVEN scientific fact coming from the virtual particle flux of the quantum vacuum. You would be ignorant to say it comes from anywhere else.
This was proven in 1957 for which there was a Nobel Prize awarded.
I have no idea what you mean by "pure voltage," but there *is* current. There is no way you're going to get sparks without current.
PL
You can indeed have sparks without current. This would of course rely on the fact that electrons are not what your using to generate the sparks. Of course you would know nothing about that.
-
The energy is for a PROVEN scientific fact coming from the virtual particle flux of the quantum vacuum. You would be ignorant to say it comes from anywhere else.
This was proven in 1957 for which there was a Nobel Prize awarded.
The fields are virtual particles, but you're making no point. So is the DC voltage from the current that flows from the battery, LOL.
PL
-
Of course, there is a current. But that current is of neutrinos (?) instead a current of electrons.
When I say about pure voltage, I say about electrostatic scalar potential. We don't need to draw current from a battery to get energy. Maybe that pure potential is similar (or is the same) as Radiant Energy. I'm not sure about that.
if you remember the electrical relaxation time in a conductor, in the first period is flowing pure voltage in the circuit and after a very very little time, current starts to flow. If we're able to get that pure voltage from that period, we will be getting energy from the battery without discharging it (because we aren't drawing current).
The energy particle of voltage is SUB-atomic (maybe neutrinos¿?) and the energy particle of current are the electrons. We can get energy from both, voltage+current (electromagnetic, transverse) or pure voltage (electrostatic scalar potential, radiant?)
Like I said, you have no conclusive evidence that the device in that video is a legit perpetual motion machine. If it is, then you can't say it's not from ambient thermal energy.
PL
-
NRGFromTheVacuum,
You're a day dreamer. I used to day dream when I was in my twenties. ;D
PL
That is all that you can say? I think you haven't arguments to answer to NRG. That is your problem.
If you have look some material of NRG you will know that NRG has a deep knowledge about the TRUE laws of electricity phenomena. Of course, I am learning and I haven't enough knowledge, but it's impossible to think that NRG hasn't enought knowledge. I'm 120% sure that NRG knows billions of times more than you.
But what about you? You are here only to discredit any theory different of your theory. In that field (in discrediting), you are very constant.
-
NRGFromTheVacuum,
You're a day dreamer. I used to day dream when I was in my twenties.
PL
Is that the most constructive argument you can come up with when someone uses real science to explain something.
I'm the dreamer even though I work in a field that imploys these technologys, and I actualy have devices instead of just a theory.
Your the ones who's dreaming guy.....
-
That is all that you can say? I think you haven't arguments to answer to NRG. That is your problem.
If you have look some material of NRG you will know that NRG has a deep knowledge about the TRUE laws of electricity. Of course, I am learning and I haven't enough knowledge, but it's impossible to think that NRG hasn't enought knowledge.
But what about you? You are here only to discredit any theory different of your theory. In that field, you are a speciallist.
No, I'm a realist. I gave NRG's claim the benefit of doubt, but still to this day he's ignored my request to show the capacitance readings on his capacitors immediately before and after doing his experiments. That's being very dodgy, to make a big experimental claim and not put forth effort to address simple issues.
And anytime NRG wants to talk real conventional physics with me, just let me know.
PL
-
No, I'm a realist. I gave NRG's claim the benefit of doubt, but still to this day he's ignored my request to show the capacitance readings on his capacitors immediately before and after doing his experiments. That's being very dodgy, to make a big experimental claim and not put forth effort to address simple issues.
And anytime NRG wants to talk real conventional physics with me, just let me know.
PL
I know the work of NRG has been replicated by others, and they have got the same results as NRG.
All that people used damaged caps as you said? Or maybe you have no idea to explain that phenomenon and you only can say that... that is an error?
At least, NRG has built some devices and has shown and proved his claims. But you are the entire day showing only pure theories. You haven't built anything yet. NRG has a lot of advantage more than you.
And of course, the only one that has proved to known REAL physics is NRG. You are only talking about school physics. NRG takes the physics to the next level: the advanced (real) level.
But of course.,.. you haven't shown enough capacity to argue in the level of NRG.
That is really proven.
-
I'm the dreamer even though I work in a field that imploys these technologys
What technologies, and doing what? Please be specific.
I actualy have devices instead of just a theory. Your the ones who's dreaming guy.....
I've seen them. So far you refuse to take simple measurements that are clear issues. As far as my theory, sorry, but it's not my theory. It's called conventional physics. Try taking a look at the math equations found in the open-source FEMM software.
PL
-
At least, NRG has built some devices and has shown and proved his claims. But you are the entire day showing only pure theories. You haven't built anything yet.
Stop spreading lies will you. You obviously haven't looked at my website.
NRG has a lot of advantage more than you.
And of course, the only one that has proved to known REAL physics is NRG. You are only talking about school physics. NRG takes the physics to the next level: the advanced (real) level.
But of course.,.. you haven't shown enough capacity to argue in the level of NRG.
That is really proven.
You people are so obvious. So who pays your bills to f--- up humanity spreading rediculous garbage that wastes time from legit researchers? And I only make that comment because of how dodgy NRG is and the completely unproven so-called science he's spreading.
I know the work of NRG has been replicated by others, and they have got the same results as NRG.
Who? I see one replication in this thread, and the guy clearly said he did *not* get over-unity. So can we chalk up another victory for the user, NRG? A another success in wasting someones time in replicating his experiment.
PL
-
One thing is proven,
The only intention you have is to spoil this thread, saying that all us are wrong because we haven't mathematically proven our theories and you're the only one here in this forum that has the valid answer to the "free energy" problem, because you have calculated and tested in a software your theory and you are right and we are wrong. This is message you are transmitting and repeating all the time.
Send a message to Stefan and say him that he needs to close this forum because you're the only one here that has the answer.
So please, if you want to collaborate in this project of this thread, posting some usefull information that can help us to develop some usefull result, do it.
But If you are here in this thread only to discredit all these posts and your intention is that all people visit your website... please... start opening threads to discuss about your theory, your website and all that you want to discuss. But stop discrediting us.
If we're right we will know it. If we're wrong, we will know it too. But permit us to discuss all the theories we want because I haven't (and I won't) visit your website to post that you're right or you're wrong.
-
Oh no you're not going to get away with that, Magnethos. You claimed a lot of people have successfully replicated NRG's experiments to prove NRG's claims. If it's the claim of his bifilar coil producing extra energy, then lets see these replications. I'll ask you *again*, where are these replications? So far I see one replication in this thread, and the guy said and showed in the video that it was less than 100% efficiency.
And please stop twisting my words. Half of what you claim of me is untrue. I asked NRG a lot of times to show cap measurements immediately before and after doing his experiments. He just ignores the request. Maybe he did them already to discover the error. Or maybe he has other intents. IMO, it's only a matter of time before ***legit*** researchers begin to wise up to you people.
PL
-
It seems to me that there is merit in what you say Magnethos.
I would also add that the properties of 'joule thief' could be beneficial to in this concept.
Regards...
-
I think Joule Thief will be good also... but I know there are people that understand much more than me about JT and they know better to adapt the JT to this system. If all we collaborate together, we can develop this system.
Some information related:
Article:
Radiant Energy:
Unraveling Tesla’s Greatest Secret
Some information extracted from the article:
Of all the great inventions and discoveries of Nikola Tesla, nothing stood out with greater potential benefit to the whole of humanity than his discovery of Radiant Energy in 1889. The series of observations that led to the discovery of Radiant energy initially grew out of experiments that Tesla had conducted in an attempt to duplicate the results that Heinrich Hertz.
While replicating Hertz’s experiments, Tesla experimented with violently abrupt DC electrical discharges [we're talking here about using Pulsed DC at very high frequency to draw voltage before current starts to flow] and discovered a new force in the process. Only after conducting exhaustive experimental trials for the next three years, did Tesla announce this stupendous discovery in a paper published in December, 1892, entitled “The Dissipation of Electricity”.
It operated in an entirely new domain of physics based on abrupt discharges of electrostatic potentials and the subsequent release of kinetic Radiant Energy from the omnipresent ether.
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave, second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave.
Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories.A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena [neutrinos?] because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines.
Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. <----- Electrical Relaxation Time
Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure?
Radiant energy was bound up within the elusive ether, but could be made manifest by the creation of an abrupt disruption in the equilibrium of the ether fractions using one way, high magnitude pulses of short duration. (I said about using high frequency Pulses of Direct Current, while inhibiting current using the NRG's bifilar coil)
This was the key that unlocked Radiant Energy.
Unlimited electricity could be made available anywhere and at any time, by merely pushing a rod into the ground and turning on the electrical appliance.This new form of energy even had the ability to elevate human consciousness to levels of vastly improved comprehension and mental clarity.
it has been achieved fully 100 years ago had Tesla been allowed to complete his commercial development of Radiant Energy.
The complete article:
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml
Article with information about Tesla and Bifilar Coil: http://www.geeman-headquarters.com/TeslaRadiantEnergySystem.pdf
Tesla, Radiant energy, Unidirectional impulses, white sparks, transformers...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_24.htm
-
No, I'm a realist. I gave NRG's claim the benefit of doubt, but still to this day he's ignored my request to show the capacitance readings on his capacitors immediately before and after doing his experiments. That's being very dodgy, to make a big experimental claim and not put forth effort to address simple issues.
And anytime NRG wants to talk real conventional physics with me, just let me know.
PL
Hi Paul,
please stop arguing and just wait,
until user NRGfromtheVaccuum will do these tests.
Or just do these tests yourself and post your results.
Many thanks for understanding.
Regards, Stefan.
-
It's been what, over a week, I've asked him at least 3 times, with no response on his part. He could use a capacitance meter, or the simple RC time constant method I described that included all of the required info to do this including the link to a RC time constant calculator.
Also, as stated, there's very little point in anyone replicating this until NRG can at least show some sincerity because this experiment has been performed countless times in college labs, at home, etc., Stefan. As stated, either NRG got ***extremely**** lucky in the way he wound the coil, or it's a ... you know what. Besides, someone in this thread already replicated NRG's experiment. This person clearly says and shows in his video that it's well under 100% efficiency. Hmmm, now that I think of it, everyone in this thread ignored that persons video. Why? He did great work! Here's the link -->
http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test (http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test)
The question is, why is NRG arguing, and taunting people with a working model of everyone's dream here, and not doing the minimum experiments. This is the same behavior that happens at these forums time after time after time. IMO legit people are beginning to get it. If someone is dodgy, gets upset or ignores you when they're asked to do a simple test that could easily reveal the truth, etc. etc. then move on and not let these people destroy this alternative energy community. They've wasted enough energy. Again, it's pointless for anyone to replicate it until they can at least do the minimum experiments.
Legit people may want to wonder why these same people that make these videos, a new username, always have theories that are so out of this world, while they ignore or throw rocks at methods of capturing common ambient thermal energy. Isn't that odd? I've shown two completely different methods of using the best available mathematics from conventional physics that ambient thermal energy is available energy in massive endless quantities: 1. Diodes. 2. Magnetic. I mean, you would think that at least a few people out of countless researchers here would see, "Gee, atoms at room temperature are continuously moving around at thousands of mph. Gee, the Sun continually sustains such energy. Gee, there are countless macro scale effects that show such energy is easily affected and transferable on a macro scale, such as thermal conductivity and gas compression and expansion. Any one who's taken Physics 101 will know that when you expand gas that you are actually *removing* energy from the vibrating gas particles! Obviously when you complete the cycle by compressing the gas back to normal you give the energy back to the gas. The tricks is make the cycle unbalanced. Perhaps viscosity? You see, IMO those are the type of thoughts intelligent researchers in this field should be pondering upon. But hey, by all means, people continue on because you no longer need to ponder upon such thoughts because I've provided the major breakthroughs, the methods, and the mathematics using well-established conventional software, FEMM. I'm mean, heck, you would people want to spend a few days verifying my claim and start working on research that is backed by the mathematics of conventional physics that is an almost 100% guarantee to be the biggest breakthrough in all history!
PL
-
Also, as stated, there's very little point in anyone replicating this until NRG can at least show some sincerity because this experiment has been performed countless times in college labs, at home, etc., Stefan. As stated, either NRG got ***extremely**** lucky in the way he wound the coil, or it's a ... you know what. Besides, someone in this thread already replicated NRG's experiment. This person clearly says and shows in his video that it's well under 100% efficiency. Hmmm, now that I think of it, everyone in this thread ignored that persons video. Why? He did great work! Here's the link -->
http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test (http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test)
Paul,
The replication in that video is incorrect, and you will undoubtedly refuse my reasons for why..
-
Hello,
I would like to make a few comments on both the subject of my "Free Electrical Energy" experiment and the reasons for my "dodgyness" to certain measurement requests.
The reason I came to this forum was to discuss, develop, and comment in a constructive way about my experiment and the science behind it. So others may learn the complex reality that drives the multi-dimensional world you live in. I understand their has been countless calculations done by others that show my experiment presents a unique situation with a COP >1. First off, I never stated at anytime that my experiment produced a COP >1. I stated that the energy captured in the secondary capacitor (30uF) was a different form of energy thus allowing it to be continually amplified to produce more work then the energy used to capture it. My measurements show all of the input energy that was transferred from the primary capacitor (7500uF) to the coil is lost. This means all the energy found in the secondary capacitor (30uF) comes from another source all together. If you carefully examine the circuit you can see while in operation, that all energy from the source is blocked from entering the secondary capacitor (30uF). So NO "overunity" is present in this particular experiment..
I understand that some of you may be having trouble grasping the fundamental processes of reality taking place in this experiment. This is expected any time you present a very complex and very different design opposed to what you've all been taught. The truth is in the circuits, building and designing them to gather energy rather then consume it.
I can only briefly look at this thread on the weekdays because of the prodigious amount work presented to me lately. I have just recently traveled for a contract from which I just returned, only to see fruitless arguments and bickering here. How is any progress going to be made if arguments are the only subject matter being debated. @ PL: I apologize for my so called "dodging" of direct measurement requests but as I stated before. I have a prodigious amount work presented to me, and your not the only one to request a specific measurement.
So let me just explain where I come from and why I have come to the conclusions I presented. I graduated from a technical trade school with a "Certificate of Proficiency" in electronics and a textbook understanding of electricity. I then moved on to college out of state where I acquired a bachelors in electrical engineering. My final project's subject was on Nikola Tesla. Which guided me toward some basic knowledge of electrical phenomenology. As intrigued as I was with electrical phenomena I decided the best path for me would be to study physics. So I attended a college in my home state for material science, physics and particle physics. After gathering knowledge of electrical engineering, advanced physics, and some basic electrical phenomena I knew their was a big piece of the picture missing. So I worked hard to acquire a job with the privilege to work on "out-of-the-box" technology's which the average citizen is not privy too. I have now since worked on those technology's. Let me just give you a short list of the companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, and laboratory's, to which I have been contracted to work with.
General Electric Company, General Dynamics, General Atomics, General MEMS Corp, The Boeing Company, Boeing Satellite Systems Inc, Lockheed Martin Corp, Orbital Science Corp , Pratt & Whitney, Apache Aerospace, The Aerospace Corp, Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp, Bell Aerospace Textron, Boeing Aerospace Division, Ensign Bickford Aerospace, GE Aerospace Division, Grumman Aerospace, I.S. Aerospace, ITT Aerospace/Communications Division, Kanan Aerospace Bloomfield, Kidde Aerospace, Michigan Aerospace Corp, Rosemount Aerospace Inc, Smith Aerospace LLC, JDS Uniphase Corp, Quantum Electro-Optical Systems Inc, Raytheon Optical Corp, Quantum Applied Science & Research Inc, Northrup Grumman Space Technology, Kamaan Aerospace,
Florida Space Institute, NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Kennedy Space Center, NASA Johnson Space Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Naval Under Sea Warfare Center, Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Oceans System Center, NRAD (Naval Research & Development), NCCOSC (Naval Command Control and Surveillance Center), Wright Patterson Airforce Base, Naval Research Laboratory, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Air Force Research Laboratory, US Army Laboratory Command, US Army Research Laboratory, US Army Aviation & Missile, US Naval Observatory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, AVCO Research Laboratory, Sandia National Labs, Los Alamos National Labs, Wyle Laboratories, Perdue University Birck Nanotechnology Center, University of Illinois Micro & Nanotechnology Laboratory, John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and many more..
These companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, and laboratory's, hire people to utilize, apply and understand the process of reality to which I have been suggesting. (Even if you don't believe it) To say that any or all of them are incorrect in their assumptions would be indubitably wrong and naive none the less. (Or ur an agent of disinformation) I don't merely make up what I say or quote it from the works of great scientists like Tesla, and Bearden. I have directly been involved in working with this technology and know for a FACT what is going on in my circuits. I do not use computer simulated math equations or conventional magnetic theory to build, compose, and engineer any of my circuits.That will never lead you toward "overunity", it only guarantees failure. I use real wisdom of the quantum vacuum from actual laboratory experiments and tests preformed in REALITY. From this experience I measure and calculate the effects I want to engineer when permitted to do so.
I had an agreement with Stefan to discuss my experiment "Free Electrical Energy". Under the conditions that I'm not forced to violate any nondisclosure agreements that I may have signed with any companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, or laboratory s.
** I say this with a straight face ** By posting the names of these companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, and laboratory's to emphasize my point, I am undoubtedly risking my career and possibly more then that.
Best Regards,
NRG
-
First off, I never stated at anytime that my experiment produced a COP >1.
Ooops!!
Screen-shot from your video saying otherwise!
P.S. As a spark is very lossy, trying to capture 'free energy' by way of a spark is a hopeless waste of time IMO.
-
Ooops!!
Screen-shot from your video saying otherwise!
P.S. As a spark is very lossy, trying to capture 'free energy' by way of a spark is a hopeless waste of time IMO.
Read what you circled "achieved COP CAN reach >1"
It does not say "achieved COP does reach >1"
Even if it did say "achieved COP does reach >1" its a stipulation based on the first part of the statement.
Lets decipher..
"With the proper make and break timing, <--------------------------- Which a human cannot produce!
or 98% Al, 2% Fe Wire, <------------------- Which I'm not using!
the achieved COP can reach >1"
-
Nrg,
I liked your videos...this is way too simple to be true (joke)
Please can you give us all a specific shopping list as I think that many of us would like to actually do your experiment before commenting.
like the core material...where to obtain the special wire, caps etc
thanks in advance
Lindsay
-
NRG,
About two weeks ago I sent you a private PM at youtube offering a suggestion to replicate your own device to see if there's anything special about the way it's wound, and perhaps even filming segments of you winding the core. Perhaps you did not see this PM because there was no reply.
PL
-
then pls tell us what your definition is of overunity.
Is it this: only if the form of energy is the same, and the energy produced is in excess over energy needed?
I stated that the energy captured in the secondary capacitor (30uF) was a different form of energy thus allowing it to be continually amplified to produce more work then the energy used to capture it.
this is the effect we are all looking for, simple as that: more energy out than in, doesn't need to have a definition like OU.
Or do you mean it is an energy collector, in which the work (in Joules total) that it can perform is equal to all the energy 'packets' put in (Joules per pulse)? Then indeed no OU.
this different form of energy, is it negative energy, such as bedini was capturing?
is it really in excess over the dissipated input energy?
how to render it useful?
first comes observation, then replication, then confirmation, then analysis and explanation of its nature, (then product engineering?).
let "us" first make the correct and desired observations. :)
best regards
-
Read what you circled "achieved COP CAN reach >1"
Parsing words?
2 more examples of your OU claims:
"get electrical energy for free! You can now take the circuit in this video and use it to continuously charge the battery"
A claim of overunity and perpetual motion (self-running/charging)
"This video shows how the electricity collected in the capacitor has more energy then the energy used from the battery to generate that electricity"
ANOTHER claim of overunity.
But now you are stating your latest video ISN'T OU because your switching isn't fast enough or the wire isn't right.
So what of your claims from the first 2 videos??
(obviously you were confused about capacitors and the difference between voltage and charge)
Fool me once.... etc.....................
-
Maybe we're a little confusing here because NRG is using 2 kinds of DIFFERENT energies.
He talks about that could be possible to achieve COP > 1, but some people say that COP is not possible.
I think we need to think the situation observing the 2 kinds of energies (Electromagnetic energy from the battery and the Dirac Sea Holes, Radiant energy¿?, etc...)
NRG uses Electromagnetic energy from the battery to ACTIVATE the circuit. Once the circuit is activated, then the negentropic effect starts and the capacitors are full of RADIANT energy. So, if we look at the ElectroMagnetic energy, there is not amplification because that EMag energy was wasted to produce the negentropic effect. But the radiant energy he has stored in the cap, has more energy to do more work.
So, there is an energy amplification because using very EMag energy, he can produce a 2nd kind of energy that can produce more work. In this case, a special case of OU is proved.
BUT, he hasn't achieved OU because that EMag energy was wasted and hasn't been amplified to more EMag energy.
He said that he CAN reach COP > 1 because the system he use is not perfect (he use copper wire and hand switching, so maybe he is drawing a little of power from the battery instead pure voltage). But using the correct wire and the correct switching time, anyone can draw pure voltage, so, the COP > 1 will be possible.
The problem here is we haven't enough tools to measure the relaxation time. But the theory is correct.
So, I think there is OU effect from ElectroMagnetic to Radiant, but not from EMag to Emag.
-
I explained something similar based on NRG system.
Extracting pure voltage from the battery, charge the caps with that electrostatic scalar potential and then amplify it and transform it to electromagnetic energy.
The REAL Tesla Coil (not the Olivier Lodge coil we know as Tesla's Coil), was an energy amplifier and worked in a similar way. The coil produced pure voltage continously, extracting that radiant energy from the vacuum. Then, that Radiant Energy was transformed into Electromagnetic energy without discharging the main source of Radiant energy.
For that reason Tesla said that everywhere in the universe we can get all the energy we want. Electrostatic energy is everywhere, but not Electromagnetic. We can extract all the Electrostatic energy we want from a battery, but if we want to extract Electromagnetic energy, then we won't can extract all the energy we want, because the EMag energy is limited to the amount of amperes. But electrostatic scalar potential is infinite and can be transformed to Emag energy.
-
How do you make radiant energy to do work, or how to create EM from it?
With what does it interact?
What happens when RE is put onto a stator coil? Does it induct a magnetic field?
-
How do you make radiant energy to do work, or how to create EM from it?
With what does it interact?
What happens when RE is put onto a stator coil? Does it induct a magnetic field?
Anyone can extract all the RE extracting only the electric field that flows BEFORE the current starts to flow. I don't know if we can use directly radiant energy to do work. I remember that Edwin Gray used that form of "Cold Electricity" in a light bulb, but I don't know if we can use it with other devices.
The original Tesla coil wasn't a magnetoelectric device as the "modern" tesla coil showed in any textbook about transformers. The Tesla Coil was an electrostatic generator of continuos high tension and the sparks where absolutely white, not blue. And there was only PURE voltage, without current.
This MAYBE was the true Tesla Coil. Or the True Tesla Coil in a machine. BUT I DON'T KNOW.
http://www.plasma-i.com/assets/site-graphics/tesla/Small-Tesla-coil-designed-f.jpg
NOTE AGAIN: I'm NOT sure.
In the conversion from Electrostatic to Electromagnetic, it seems that Tesla used like a ring and unidirectional impulses (¿?) and in that process automatically current is created.
I know the russians used a similar system to send electricity without loses.
They transformed electromagnetic to electrostatic, then they sent it throught only 1 wire and then they transformed from electrostatic to electromagnetic. That is the way they sent electricity WITHOUT losses.
But I haven't more information about that ???
I also know that there were a formulas called "Tesla's Electrostatic Induction Laws"
I also know that there is a battery called The "Zamboni Pile". That battery was an electrostatic battery. It produces a lot of kilovots and the legend says that the same battery is runing a clokc in Oxford since 1840!!
-
How do you make radiant energy to do work, or how to create EM from it?
With what does it interact?
What happens when RE is put onto a stator coil? Does it induct a magnetic field?
to ask question is the most easy way to get answers. better let the other do the work!!
-
Maybe we're a little confusing here because NRG is using 2 kinds of DIFFERENT energies.
It doesn't matter if he's talking about heat energy, mechanical energy, or whatever because when you say there's ***more*** energy you are making a very clear statement. Do you have a new theory that says *more* Bla-Bla energy is less energy than La-La energy? That wouldn't make sense.
The text in his videos are very clear. One example, "This video shows how the electricity collected in the capacitor has ***MORE*** energy ..."
PL
-
to ask question is the most easy way to get answers. better let the other do the work!!
true, what are you waiting for, start building to provide me the answers.
but seriously, many here seem to know a big deal, so why not ask questions?
@mag
thanks
isn't this radiant energy (aka negative energy) different in nature than (positive) electrostatic energy, therefore different rules apply?
how does it interact with electrons/charge when released at will, after capturing?
-
Maybe we're a little confusing here because NRG is using 2 kinds of DIFFERENT energies.
So, there is an energy amplification because using very EMag energy, he can produce a 2nd kind of energy that can produce more work. In this case, a special case of OU is proved.
That is correct.....
The text in his videos are very clear. One example, "This video shows how the electricity collected in the capacitor has ***MORE*** energy ..."
PL
My statements in the video where misleading, that was my mistake for which I apologize.
Magnethos explains whats happening very clearly.
BUT, he hasn't achieved OU because that EMag energy was wasted and hasn't been amplified to more EMag energy.
He said that he CAN reach COP > 1 because the system he use is not perfect (he use copper wire and hand switching, so maybe he is drawing a little of power from the battery instead pure voltage). But using the correct wire and the correct switching time, anyone can draw pure voltage, so, the COP > 1 will be possible.
-
@ nrg in your video you share a circuit (attached ) which you say can be used to extract cold electricity & can be used to charge the battery.
i have 3 questions
1.what component are you using in circle marked red is it a reed switch,hall switch or an op-to?
2. can you draw the wires clearly, which wire is going where.?
3. gauge or size of the wire you had winded.?
i know you are very busy, but if you don't share the information it becomes difficult for normal lay man to replicate the experiments.
thanks in advance.
-
My statements in the video where misleading, that was my mistake for which I apologize.
from dictionary.com
Misleading:
Definition - deceptive; tending to mislead
Synoyms - deceitful, deceptive, false, fradulent
Antonyms - honest, truthful
u show a process and videos that show how to produce more energy out than in
now u say its not true its deceitful videos
u should be honest and change the videos to clearly state that
maybe u should get your buddies at nasa to help u build a $10 switching circuit giggle snort
-
from dictionary.com
Misleading:
Definition - deceptive; tending to mislead
Synoyms - deceitful, deceptive, false, fradulent
Antonyms - honest, truthful
u show a process and videos that show how to produce more energy out than in
now u say its not true its deceitful videos
u should be honest and change the videos to clearly state that
maybe u should get your buddies at nasa to help u build a $10 switching circuit giggle snort
From dictionary.com - Energy: the capacity to do work
Until the energy stored in the secondary capacitor actually does preform work. Then nobody here has any idea how much work it can preform.
So when I state that the secondary capacitor has MORE energy then the energy used to generate (which should say gather) that electricity.
It should be interpreted as: "The secondary capacitor has a larger capacity to do work then the energy used from the source capacitor that gathered that capacity to do work."
I am human, so I'm entitled to make some grammar mistakes time to time.. ;)
-
All of this talk still doesn't answer any of the important questions. I'm guessing you don't have access to the capacitor meter for your experiments. That's fine, and in fact for this case it's better to do the capacitance measurement with a simple RC time constant test. The RC time constant test does not require the cap to be first discharged before taking the test. In fact, you could use whatever charge happens to be on the cap to do the RC test.
If you could please do a quick RC test on both caps immediately before and after your experiment then that would help a lot.
If it's still a thumbs up, then all I can say is to build another bifilar coil and see if it works. If it were me, I would use other caps on the original bifilar coil before building another just to make sure it's not something special with the cap.
PL
-
@ nrg in your video you share a circuit (attached ) which you say can be used to extract cold electricity & can be used to charge the battery.
i have 3 questions
1.what component are you using in circle marked red is it a reed switch,hall switch or an op-to?
2. can you draw the wires clearly, which wire is going where.?
3. gauge or size of the wire you had winded.?
i know you are very busy, but if you don't share the information it becomes difficult for normal lay man to replicate the experiments.
thanks in advance.
YouTube really makes that picture look bad, here is a better one.
-
Hi NRGFromTheVacuum ,
your experiment is really very interesting!
I certainly want to try it one day, good coil needed first.
I have few questions.
If I see correctly in your videos, you use both bifilar windings in parallel, this give you smallest resistance, any other benefit from this in your setup ?
Did you try connect windings in Tesla bifilar coil - first winding's end connected to second winding's beginning. This increase resistance from 4 ohm to 8 ohm (not good, if I understand right), but maybe increase output voltage?
Can I use 10mm diam ferrite from AM radio antena for coil? preferable turns, wire diam. ?
I see this process as two steps - in first step source voltage loud coil (right end of coil during both switches connected to ground), second step - coil loud back to cap. Wen both switches are on, cap is totally shorted. In my understanding, switch S1 must be connected little longer than S2, then cap is unshorted and can receive impulse from coil. Of course we are talking here about very short times. Maybe your best results is in moments, wen your "switch" is not perfectly synchronic?
Or it work in different way ?
Anyway, if this effect is really OU, it is relatively easy to make really useful machine from this.
Regards, Zigis.
-
Hi guy's.
Sorry I didn't drop in this week...been very busy.
I still don't understand why no more people have made tests....it's not hard?
All talking can do nothing.
I had read a certain experiment hundreds of times and had in my mind how it ought to be, but when I actually got around to doing the test the result was much different than I had predicted and I learn't alot that day that was new to me.
Scotty.
-
Hi guy's.
Sorry I didn't drop in this week...been very busy.
I still don't understand why no more people have made tests....it's not hard?
All talking can do nothing.
I had read a certain experiment hundreds of times and had in my mind how it ought to be, but when I actually got around to doing the test the result was much different than I had predicted and I learn't alot that day that was new to me.
Scotty.
Scotty,
If you desire to to get a greater result, try making & breaking the connections on a brass plate on top of the coil.
-
All of this talk still doesn't answer any of the important questions. I'm guessing you don't have access to the capacitor meter for your experiments. That's fine, and in fact for this case it's better to do the capacitance measurement with a simple RC time constant test. The RC time constant test does not require the cap to be first discharged before taking the test. In fact, you could use whatever charge happens to be on the cap to do the RC test.
If you could please do a quick RC test on both caps immediately before and after your experiment then that would help a lot.
If it's still a thumbs up, then all I can say is to build another bifilar coil and see if it works. If it were me, I would use other caps on the original bifilar coil before building another just to make sure it's not something special with the cap.
PL
Paul,
You are correct, I do not have worthy meters for this experiment right now. I preformed the RCTC tests and used a Craftsman DMM to time the decay. IMO, the results are flawed until I acquire higher impedance resistors, or the proper meter.
The RCTC test for the 30uF capacitor was done directly after the experiment.
The RCTC test for the 7500uF capacitor was done moments before the experiment.
-
When Bifilar is implied, the relative winding direction must be specified: Are the two wires connected in parallel opposition(maximum capacitance, minimum inductive impedance) or are they in parallel co-linear(minimum ohmic resistance, maximum diverging flux density)?
-
NRG,
Those values are way off, so something's really wrong. Just -->
1. Measure the caps voltage and quickly remove the DMM.
2. Connect the resistor across the cap for a timed period. A 0.1 second resolution timer should be good enough, but you'll need larger R than 5.5K because 2.2 seconds is a bit fast. If you don't have a timer, then download one on your computer. Or if you have a digital time and perhaps a relay or transistor, then you could get better timing.
3. *Quickly* measure the caps voltage with your DMM.
4. Calculate the voltage drop percentage.
5. Enter the resistor, percentage, and time in the calculator and it will tell you the capacitance.
Try to use a DMM that has the highest input resistance, at least 10Mohm, so as to minimize cap voltage decay while you're measuring its voltage.
PL
-
Paul,
The replication in that video is incorrect, and you will undoubtedly refuse my reasons for why..
Hi NRGFromTheVacuum,
I would not mind hearing the reasons why my replication is incorrect since I believe I'm the first to take the time to replicate your setup and to also make a video.
Thanks for sharing.
Luc
-
When Bifilar is implied, the relative winding direction must be specified: Are the two wires connected in parallel opposition(maximum capacitance, minimum inductive impedance) or are they in parallel co-linear(minimum ohmic resistance, maximum diverging flux density)?
The coil was made with the wires wound loosely around the core in a parallel co-linear fashion. The ends are then twisted and connected together.
In this case you do not want the wires wound in opposition to each other. The capacitance that builds in the coil causes the relaxation time to increase, which leads to a poor gradient. Without that increased flux density and low resistance, your gradient will be to insufficient to gather the output you desire.
-
Hi NRGFromTheVacuum,
I would not mind hearing the reasons why my replication is incorrect since I believe I'm the first to take the time to replicate your setup and to also make a video.
Thanks for sharing.
Luc
Hi Luc,
Without getting into details, your capacitors voltage values are incorrect.
You did a great job building the circuit from the looks of the video, but the results are poor for the following reasons:
For the source capacitor you need a lower voltage value with high Farads. <-------(This caps written voltage value must always be lower then your collector caps)
For your collector capacitor you need a higher voltage value with low Farads <-------(This caps written voltage value must always be higher then your source caps)
Keep building, the best results will come in due time. I found so far that brass is the best metal to make & break the connections on, copper is only second best.
-
NRG,
Those values are way off, so something's really wrong. Just -->
1. Measure the caps voltage and quickly remove the DMM.
2. Connect the resistor across the cap for a timed period. A 0.1 second resolution timer should be good enough, but you'll need larger R than 5.5K because 2.2 seconds is a bit fast. If you don't have a timer, then download one on your computer. Or if you have a digital time and perhaps a relay or transistor, then you could get better timing.
3. *Quickly* measure the caps voltage with your DMM.
4. Calculate the voltage drop percentage.
5. Enter the resistor, percentage, and time in the calculator and it will tell you the capacitance.
Try to use a DMM that has the highest input resistance, at least 10Mohm, so as to minimize cap voltage decay while you're measuring its voltage.
PL
Paul,
Just please be patient, I will try and get the proper measurements.
I will include measurements for both capacitors directly before and after the experiment takes place.
-
I've been reading this thread with great interest.
I am an electric engineer myself and have many years of research experience at the largest science laboratory of Europe. So it's hard to take some distance towards the traditional theories that mostly are used. Nevertheless, I think that experiments that challenge traditional insights, like this one, are necessary to make scientific progress.
I have a basic remark to NRG:
The principle you show is more convincing when you use two identical capacitors.
(one charged, as power source, one to be charged)
Would it be possible for you to perform your basic setup with 2 similar capacitors?
-
Today i made few tests.
Because I haven't wire and all other parts for good coil right now, and because I am impatient, I take choke from old tube radio PS, unknown inductance, 43 ohm resistance and 30 mf x 400V paper in oil.
From source 12V car battery I can get 35-40V in best trying, with 4 small 9V batterys in series (30V) I can get 80-87V.
I see, timing for best result is very difficult. My best results was with 2 test probes from multimeter on cooper PCB's cut-off.
I am not trying calculate efficiency, because my coil is far from required :) I just want to see how this effect work, and what timing is required.
With hand hit it is hard to understand, why sometime is good result, sometime no.
Then i try to use DP momentary toggle switch, double pole relay. In both I can't get good results, I get only 2-3V on few seconds, and than voltage disappears. I try to change relay's contacts place with no results.
I think i can get very short contact time, there is no problem. My guess is - with perfect synchronic switches it not work, small timing is needed.
Next week I am going to try build good coil for future tests.
Zigis.
-
Zigis,
You only need the right kind of relay. Using the plate method the person can get quick & far gap distances. Most relays have short gap distances. Also the relay should have a strong spring, otherwise it's too slow.
PL
-
Thanks Paul Lowrance,
about slow reaction and springs I am thinking too, do you think distance between contacts in open position is important too ?
Maybe I can find in flea market some old large power relays and take contact group from them.
Zigis.
-
Hi Luc,
Without getting into details, your capacitors voltage values are incorrect.
You did a great job building the circuit from the looks of the video, but the results are poor for the following reasons:
For the source capacitor you need a lower voltage value with high Farads. <-------(This caps written voltage value must always be lower then your collector caps)
For your collector capacitor you need a higher voltage value with low Farads <-------(This caps written voltage value must always be higher then your source caps)
Keep building, the best results will come in due time. I found so far that brass is the best metal to make & break the connections on, copper is only second best.
Thanks for the reply NRGFromTheVacuum,
I have a 30 volt DC 30,000uf cap that I'm quite sure I had also tried as supply cap with the 400 volts AC 60uf motor run cap as receiver but don't remember seeing a better result.
I'll give it one more try and if I get a better result I'll post a new video.
This could be a very specific combination of coil and cap size and you are closer then me with it.
Luc
-
I'm wondering what the maximum voltage spike is. I've seen transistors that are good for at least 1500V. IMO that would get the best results with the proper timing, but then again such experiments are almost entirely only good for a learning experience. NRG still needs to know the capacitance just before and after the experiment. Also, IMO he should try to replicate his own coil.
PL
-
I replicated the basic experiment last night using only the battery and capacitor.
The cap was a .85uF 2300V and was charged to 340V from a single pulse.
It appears to me that at the moment of the pulse the cap is charge to 24v and then inductor acquires its energy/charge after which the circuit is disconnected and the bemf of the inductor is released through the single wire connection to the capacitor.
Clever!
I'll see if I can implement a commutator on a low rpm motor as a reliably switch.
-Duff
-
Wouldn't the use of relay's work better?
Relay's normally would have very reliable contact plates.
You could always use the rotor to power the relay coils.
-
Even better yet a 400+ volt transistor.
PL
-
@guys
Sorry for regressing back to post #1 since I did not have time to read the whole thread given I spend more of my time on building and testing things, but I do have a concern of the uTube video showing the two capacitors as OU.
There is one medium DC capacitor of high uF and low voltage transfering a charge to the big non-polarized capacitor of low uF and high voltage. You then measure the voltage in the big cap and do some math to get the comparative joules of energy. But this is not right in my view since the big capacitor will certainly not have a linear specification relative to voltage level and percentage on the dielectric occupied by the charge.
Meaning if the big cap is a 1200volts, and you read 120 volts as a given charge, it does not mean there is 10% of the dielectric being used, hence using the uF value of the cap to do the math would not be right. You would require the real capacitor specifications to understand how a voltage reading realates to the total charge in the capacitor in joules.
Otherwise you would have to then use the charge in the big cap to do some work and compare it to the work being done by the smaller cap.
Another example would be if the big cap was fully charged to 1200 volts and you put a motor load via a resistor and find that the capacitor can discharge all its energy in time and make the motor turn one complete turn. It does not mean if the capacitor is charged to only 120 volts it will make the motor turn 1/10th of a turn. Hence you should not rely on the capacitor value to do your math especially if you are using such a big capacitor.
-
Hi wattsup,
They're aware of that, which is why they use the equation -->
E = 0.5 C V^2
Note that the "^2" in the equation. That means the voltage is squared.
The way they're calculating the energy is correct. What they need to do is determine the capacitance since electrolytic are a bit dynamic capacitance.
PL
-
@PL
Thanks for the clarification. I would think that showing work would be the best way since the conclusion is a high enough COP, work should show the difference well enough.
OK back to work myself.
-
Wouldn't the use of relay's work better?
Relay's normally would have very reliable contact plates.
You could always use the rotor to power the relay coils.
Even better yet a 400+ volt transistor.
PL
Yes is would be easier however using relays or transistors does not allow for trying different metals combinations for the contact switching.
-Duff
Edit:
It appears to me that at the moment of the pulse the cap is charge to 24v and then inductor acquires its energy/charge after which the circuit is disconnected and the bemf of the inductor is released through the single wire connection to the capacitor.
The above statement I made is incorrect.
It appears the capacitor is shorted out while the inductor is charging...
-
Yes is would be easier however using relays or transistors does not allow for trying different metals combinations for the contact switching.
After the best metal combination is found, he can modify a relay and replace the contact materials
with the metals he wants. With a bit of manual skill this should be no problem.
By the way, very tiring to read through this thread.. Instead of attacking the guy, why not actively help confirm and/or disprove the experiment? That would be scientific.
-
With reference to the above drawaing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162581#msg162581 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162581#msg162581)
I did some initial testing of the circuit with poor results. The battery voltage fluctuates wildly (mostly negative). Putting a scope across the battery shows 20+ volt spikes, both positive and negative in the same instant. I think the fluctuation are due to the load placed on the battery as the three brushes hit the shorting bar. I varied the motor speed between 300/800 rpms and did not observe any charging effect.
The commutators were made of a 3/4" copper plumbing coupling, filled with JB Weld and then drilled & threaded so as to screw onto the motor shaft. Three channels were then cut so as to isolate the brush from each other and a shorting bar left intact so the three brushes connected when crossing. For the brushes I used #24 copper magwire with the ends bare (copper to copper contact).
With reference to the wire in the circuit that seemingly shorts the capacitor ( In the drawing its the middle brush). I already made comments about it in two previous posts but as it turns out it does NOT prevent the capacitor from charging (obviously the circuit works) but I found that totally non-intuitive.
-Duff
-
With reference to the above drawaing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162581#msg162581 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162581#msg162581)
I did some initial testing of the circuit with poor results. The battery voltage fluctuates wildly (mostly negative). Putting a scope across the battery shows 20+ volt spikes, both positive and negative in the same instant. I think the fluctuation are due to the load placed on the battery as the three brushes hit the shorting bar. I varied the motor speed between 300/800 rpms and did not observe any charging effect.
The commutators were made of a 3/4" copper plumbing coupling, filled with JB Weld and then drilled & threaded so as to screw onto the motor shaft. Three channels were then cut so as to isolate the brush from each other and a shorting bar left intact so the three brushes connected when crossing. For the brushes I used #24 copper magwire with the ends bare (copper to copper contact).
With reference to the wire in the circuit that seemingly shorts the capacitor ( In the drawing its the middle brush). I already made comments about it in two previous posts but as it turns out it does NOT prevent the capacitor from charging (obviously the circuit works) but I found that totally non-intuitive.
-Duff
What do you think about adding two diodes to rectify the electricity going in and out of the capacitor?
Jesus
-
duff, what you mean with poor results? Do you can't charge cap to high voltage, or charged cap can't charge battery?
Maybe try to separate both steps first.
I ask, because I try small relay, and cant repeat hand hiting result, cap simply not charge.
I think, maybe all three contacts not need to be perfectly in one time, maybe ground disconnect first, and cap and coil small bit later? However this is only my speculation.
Zigis.
-
What do you think about adding two diodes to rectify the electricity going in and out of the capacitor?
Jesus
@Jesus
I tried putting one diode as you show at the negative terminal of the battery but that did not seem to produce charging. I will try a second as you have shown at the commutator tonight.
These are just preliminary results.
duff, what you mean with poor results? Do you can't charge cap to high voltage, or charged cap can't charge battery?
Maybe try to separate both steps first.
I ask, because I try small relay, and cant repeat hand hiting result, cap simply not charge.
I think, maybe all three contacts not need to be perfectly in one time, maybe ground disconnect first, and cap and coil small bit later? However this is only my speculation.
Zigis.
@Zigis
I can charge a cap to 340V using the technique demonstrated by NRG.
I don't yet know if the commutator is producing the same results. I do know the commutator is not charging the battery. So, by poor results I mean it is not charging the battery.
I've got to simplify the setup and determine if the commutator is producing the same results.
@all
Here is a little bit more info about my setup:
The shorting bar was a calculated length based on the RL time constant and angular velocity, so varying the speed effects how the inductor charges.
Also, I'm NOT using an loosely wound inductor. I'm using a trifilar with two of the winding connected together. The third is not being used. The core is 3/4" in diameter and made of welding wire. Since I got the capacitor to charge using the hand tapping method I went ahead and used it in the initial test.
-Duff
-
I tried putting one diode as you show at the negative terminal of the battery but that did not seem to produce charging.
I can charge a cap to 340V using the technique demonstrated by NRG.
You need to make sure your diode has well over 340V reverse breakdown. Not too many diodes can handle that much voltage.
PL
-
Close SW1 so that it always remains connected to the metal plate. Insert a diode as shown (becomes SW1 in a sense).
Now again perform the hand switching action with the remaining alligator lead SW2 to the metal plate.
I will venture to say that you will get similar "good" results, but they should be more consistent.
.99
-
Below are my notes & results on the latest round of tests in which I am trying to determine if the commutator/brushes will produce NRG's results.
Connecting the scope across the capacitor and turning the motor slowly so that the pulses are generated at a rate of about 3 per second produces several hundred volt spikes but not consistently.
To determine if the capacitor is maintaining a 300+ volts charge, I changed the discharge timing to discharge just before acquiring another charge. The charge shorting bar width is 0.25"/6.4mm, discharge bar width is 0.34"/8.6mm, and commutator circumference is 3.00"/76.2mm.
Due to much noise I replaced one of the #24 wire brushes with a #18 wire. This gave a little more contact area and lowered its resistance.
Using the #18 wire on the left brush, which is the capacitor shorting switch, seem to lower the noise. I noted some spikes of 200 to 300 volts and occasionally the capacitor would charge to 300+ volts (as a result of one switching event) and maintain the voltage till discharged into the battery (one revolution).
I need to improve the brushes to reduce the noise and resistance. Hopefully that will produce consistent results which I DO NOT currently have. I've also noted that the brushes get a carbon build up fairly rapidly.
Can the commutator produce the effect? - Yes, but not consistently with the current brush implementation.
@Poynt99
I tried the circuit variation you posted.
To compare the results of the original NGR circuit with the Diode version, I made 30 strikes on the metal strip of each circuit and recorded the voltages.
The original NRG circuit produced an average of 191V with the maximum voltage being 338V
The modified circuit with the diode produced an average of 98V with a maximum voltage of 190V.
I also tried connecting the shorting capacitor switch, SW2, to the metal strip and striking with only SW1. That produced 0 volts.
-Duff
-
OK Duff, thanks for trying that.
Could there be something that makes electrolytics more "receptive" to charge if they are shorted just before charging?
The only other thing that comes to mind is the addition of SW1 introduces one more "noisy" contact which may result in more pulses through the coil resulting in a higher end-voltage on the cap.
.99
-
The modified circuit with the diode produced an average of 98V with a maximum voltage of 190V.
What's the diode part #?
PL
-
What's the diode part #?
PL
Duff,
As Paul is alluding to here, try again with 2 MUR1560 (or equivalent) diodes in series.
Slow, low reverse voltage diodes will probably kill the effect.
.99
-
As Paul is alluding to here, try again with 2 MUR1560 (or equivalent) diodes in series.
That will work. Although just one MUR1560 should suffice, no? The reverse breakdown, Vr, of the MUR1560 is 600V. One will have less losses then two in-series.
PL
-
That will work. Although just one MUR1560 should suffice, no? The reverse breakdown, Vr, of the MUR1560 is 600V. One will have less losses then two in-series.
PL
Paul & Poynt,
Thanks for the input -
The original test was with a 1N4007
I had one FEP16JT -
Max Repetitive Reverse Voltage: 600V
Max RMS Voltage: 420V
Max Reverse Recovery Time: 50ns
Again I struck the copper plate 30 times.
Average Voltage: 105.63V
Max Voltage: 146V
Note: I never saw spikes greater than 350V when testing the commutator.
-Duff
Edit: The capacitor I'm using is a non-polarized 0.85uF 2300VAC
-
It's been what, over a week, I've asked him at least 3 times, with no response on his part. He could use a capacitance meter, or the simple RC time constant method I described that included all of the required info to do this including the link to a RC time constant calculator.
Also, as stated, there's very little point in anyone replicating this until NRG can at least show some sincerity because this experiment has been performed countless times in college labs, at home, etc., Stefan. As stated, either NRG got ***extremely**** lucky in the way he wound the coil, or it's a ... you know what. Besides, someone in this thread already replicated NRG's experiment. This person clearly says and shows in his video that it's well under 100% efficiency. Hmmm, now that I think of it, everyone in this thread ignored that persons video. Why? He did great work! Here's the link -->
http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test (http://www.energetictube.com/play/Vacuum_Radiant_Energy/NRG%20From%20The%20Vacuum%20replication%20test)
The question is, why is NRG arguing, and taunting people with a working model of everyone's dream here, and not doing the minimum experiments. This is the same behavior that happens at these forums time after time after time. IMO legit people are beginning to get it. If someone is dodgy, gets upset or ignores you when they're asked to do a simple test that could easily reveal the truth, etc. etc. then move on and not let these people destroy this alternative energy community. They've wasted enough energy. Again, it's pointless for anyone to replicate it until they can at least do the minimum experiments.
Legit people may want to wonder why these same people that make these videos, a new username, always have theories that are so out of this world, while they ignore or throw rocks at methods of capturing common ambient thermal energy. Isn't that odd? I've shown two completely different methods of using the best available mathematics from conventional physics that ambient thermal energy is available energy in massive endless quantities: 1. Diodes. 2. Magnetic. I mean, you would think that at least a few people out of countless researchers here would see, "Gee, atoms at room temperature are continuously moving around at thousands of mph. Gee, the Sun continually sustains such energy. Gee, there are countless macro scale effects that show such energy is easily affected and transferable on a macro scale, such as thermal conductivity and gas compression and expansion. Any one who's taken Physics 101 will know that when you expand gas that you are actually *removing* energy from the vibrating gas particles! Obviously when you complete the cycle by compressing the gas back to normal you give the energy back to the gas. The tricks is make the cycle unbalanced. Perhaps viscosity? You see, IMO those are the type of thoughts intelligent researchers in this field should be pondering upon. But hey, by all means, people continue on because you no longer need to ponder upon such thoughts because I've provided the major breakthroughs, the methods, and the mathematics using well-established conventional software, FEMM. I'm mean, heck, you would people want to spend a few days verifying my claim and start working on research that is backed by the mathematics of conventional physics that is an almost 100% guarantee to be the biggest breakthrough in all history!
PL
Just one note In his video, he uses a Non polarized AC capacitor, which most of them I see have internal resistance compared to NRG's capacitor which appears to be a paper style capacitor more suited to RF where its internal resistances are much lower.
-
Duff, are you saying the diode method did not charge the cap as high as the metal plate method? It's possible the AC voltage is going well over the diodes Vr, perhaps due to resonance from the cap and coil. A scope could check for this. I wonder what the max current is with the metal plate method. If it's very high, then the diode losses could be significant.
PL
-
@Jesus
I tried putting one diode as you show at the negative terminal of the battery but that did not seem to produce charging.
I thought you put the diode in-series with the high voltage cap. That makes a huge difference. So it seems we're talking about two entirely different circuits.
PL
-
Duff, are you saying the diode method did not charge the cap as high as the metal plate method?
No, the diode method did not charge the cap as high as NRG's circuit.
It's possible the AC voltage is going well over the diodes Vr, perhaps due to resonance from the cap and coil. A scope could check for this. I wonder what the max current is with the metal plate method. If it's very high, then the diode losses could be significant.
It possible but I not think so. The 1n4007 has a Vr of 1000V though it not that fast. The FEP16JT certainly has it covered on speed. Also, the FEP16JT has a current rating of 16A.
As stated previously I never saw spikes over 350V when using the commutator. I could get a scope shot but I really don't think it's worth the trouble being I don't have a storage scope.
At the moment I'm concentrating my efforts on another commutator and different brushes.
Quote from: duff on March 13, 2009, 10:49:49
@Jesus
I tried putting one diode as you show at the negative terminal of the battery but that did not seem to produce charging.
I thought you put the diode in-series with the high voltage cap. That makes a huge difference. So it seems we're talking about two entirely different circuits.
PL
Yes, a different circuit. This was related to the commutator circuit.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163330#msg163330 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163330#msg163330)
-Duff
-
Yes, a different circuit. This was related to the commutator circuit.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163330#msg163330 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163330#msg163330)
Isn't that circuit "cheating" just a bit. As shown, the battery is connected to the coil. Wasn't the whole purpose to use the energy stored in the low voltage cap to charge the high voltage cap?
PL
-
Have you tried this circuit? In LTspice, using real materials with real losses, I was charging the high voltage cap to 325V with cap charged to 26V.
Close switch W1 to allow the C1 cap charge, then open W1, then hit the metal plate (switch W2). The amount of inductance in the coil makes a huge difference.
PL
-
After playing with the circuit a bit, realistic values according to what NRG was getting in the video is 200mH for the coil. The low voltage cap was charged to 26V. The cap was connected to the 200mH inductor for 0.2 seconds. With that setup, the 33uF cap charged to 220V.
PL
-
Isn't that circuit "cheating" just a bit. As shown, the battery is connected to the coil. Wasn't the whole purpose to use the energy stored in the low voltage cap to charge the high voltage cap?
PL
Paul,
The link I gave went with the response to Jesus that YOU qutoed. Jesus suggested the circuit. Please read the thread in sequence.
This is the circuit I am testing.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162200#msg162200
I don't plan on trying any other variation of the circuit until I feel I can't take it any further.
-Duff
-
That looks like the same circuit as shown in your other link, except it's not in a circuit diagram format.
Anyhow, I have no interest in that circuit because it's using the battery to charge to coil. What caught my interest was the NRG circuit that used a capacitor to quickly charge a coil, which in turn was used to charge another capacitor.
NRG, any idea when you might be able to measure the capacitance of your caps just before and after the experiments? I gave you a very simple RC method.
PL
-
@duff
It seems that I made a mistake with the polarity. I thought that the side of the battery with the 0 was the negative pole.
But if it is the positive it should be tested like this.
This was what I meant with the other two diodes on the wrong polarity.
One diode will charge the cap the other will charge the battery when the cap is discharded. Or that is the hope.
Jesus
-
@Jesus:
What is the purpose of the two diodes actually?
You have mentioned Rectification? But aren`t we having DC in the circuit anyway (at least on cap discharge)?
I don´t see the advantage of using the diodes in contrast to leaving them out, as they open the line in both directions all the time (in contrast to e.g. a TRIAC which is timed), so they can´t control the current direction while cap charge or battery charge.
It would be nice if you could elaborate on their function to help understand the circuit how
you intend it to work, i am sure you have a good reason to use 2 anti-parallel diodes.
Thanks
-
@Jesus:
What is the purpose of the two diodes actually?
You have mentioned Rectification? But aren`t we having DC in the circuit anyway (at least on cap discharge)?
I don´t see the advantage of using the diodes in contrast to leaving them out, as they open the line in both directions all the time (in contrast to e.g. a TRIAC which is timed), so they can´t control the current direction while cap charge or battery charge.
It would be nice if you could elaborate on their function to help understand the circuit how
you intend it to work, i am sure you have a good reason to use 2 anti-parallel diodes.
Thanks
I apologize if the capacitor is not charged with ac voltage. I thought that the coil when pulsed was filling the capacitor with ac voltage. So I proposed the diodes in order to rectify the voltage so when the capacitor discharges on the timed rotor the voltage will charge the battery through the second diode.
The circuit was better when I made it on the negative side. There was one only diode to charge the cap and one only diode to recharge the battery. The direction of the diodes were thinking that they were workong on the positive side.
Again I apologize!!!
Jesus
-
The question:
Why does it appear that using SW1 AND SW2 together causes the capacitor end-voltage to be almost twice as high when using only SW2 alone and with the diode?
A most probable answer:
RESISTANCE.
Easy to overlook, and not so obvious is the fact that two alligator leads in parallel will have roughly half the resistance of one alone. Where is the electrical path that puts SW1 in parallel with SW2 you ask? Through the capacitor of course!
SW2 connects the coil across the battery directly, and SW1 does so through the capacitor. At the instant a capacitor experiences a change of potential across its terminals it acts as a short, minus a finite internal resistance. This effectively places two connections to complete the circuit for a short instant of time, doubling the initial current. In fact to get optimum results, SW1 should be contacted a fraction of a second before SW2 connects. This most likely explains why the results have not been consistent.
To prove this theory and to consistently obtain better results, use two alligator leads clipped together in parallel to form SW2 and use the diode as per my previous post with the diagram here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163425#msg163425
.99
-
The question:
Why does it appear that using SW1 AND SW2 together causes the capacitor end-voltage to be almost twice as high when using only SW2 alone and with the diode?
A most probable answer:
RESISTANCE.
Easy to overlook, and not so obvious is the fact that two alligator leads in parallel will have roughly half the resistance of one alone. Where is the electrical path that puts SW1 in parallel with SW2 you ask? Through the capacitor of course!
SW2 connects the coil across the battery directly, and SW1 does so through the capacitor. At the instant a capacitor experiences a change of potential across its terminals it acts as a short, minus a finite internal resistance. This effectively places two connections to complete the circuit for a short instant of time, doubling the initial current. In fact to get optimum results, SW1 should be contacted a fraction of a second before SW2 connects. This most likely explains why the results have not been consistent.
To prove this theory and to consistently obtain better results, use two alligator leads clipped together in parallel to form SW2 and use the diode as per my previous post with the diagram here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg163425#msg163425
.99
I performed the test with two leads as SW2. This time I did a total of 60 strikes.
The first 30 I was striking the alligator clips against the copper plate. The average voltage was 105V with a max of 191V.
The next 30 I clipped the alligators to a #14 wire that had one end curled. I struck 1/2 the time with the blunt end and the other 1/2 with the curled end. The average voltage was 150.9 with a max of 319V (one time).
Even though I got one 319V the average is still lower than NRG average which was 204V.
It seems to me the way the strike occurs has significant influence. The #14 wire with the curled end worked best, having more surface area and possibly skidding as the strike was made.
===
I have the commutators functional now but the results are not as good as I had hoped.
I polished the commutator and brushes (AWG 9 with end curled & filed flat on contact area & suspended on independent supports) with 1600 grit emery cloth. Still there is much noise and I do NOT see the capacitor charging to 300+ volts. I've also noted that I did not make my discharge bar wide enough to fully discharge the cap.
-Duff
-
A couple questions if you get the time NRG,
1 - Would 2 seperate coils in parallel have the same effect as a bifilar coil? IE: Is it the 2 separate circuit paths or the proximity between windings that is important?
2 - Do you think wirewound resistors would be adequate or are they likely to release magic smoke?
3 - Is there a tuning to this negative-energy inrush? I mean, would a 5h coil gather 5x as much energy vs. a 1h coil, or is there a 'sweet spot' based on the voltage levels and/or capacitor ratings?
I sympathize with all the working on-the-road, I'm out-of-state and don't have any equipment with me to replicate, so I'm trying to make sense of this as much as I can before I get back.
-
Thanks Duff for the test.
I'm all out of ideas here guys. This may be a difficult one to characterize, since the results are so inconsistent.
Good luck with it and let me know if I can help in any other way.
.99
-
Hello Honoured Profiles and The Honoured Administrator and The Honoured Anonymous Readers of This The Honourable OU-Forum !
Might I kindly just briefly mention about :
##
the Honoured Profile PaulLowran so kindly importantly mentioned in Reply 240 of 09.th March 2009 about socalled High-Voltages-withstandable "Transistors"......YES.....Such Power Bipolars Transistors and PowerFets might cheaply be DE-parted from Elder discarded PC-Monitors/CTVs....!
Also might cheaply various "FlyBack-power-diodes" + High-VoltagesCapacitors/Electrolytical-Capacitors + variouselfInductances"...etc....be DE-parted from various discarded OC-Monitors/CTVs/
PowerSupplies-"Gears"...etc !
##
the Continued Story about socalled "Switched Inductors" => might thus kindly be mentioned various References (per google-search and per Technical Libraries search, etc) to various Electronics-Litteratures/ElectroTechnical Litteratures about "Switch-mode"-Methods , etc !
And might be kindly hinted about : the socalled H-Magnetical-Flux-Windings-Turns--Effective-Inner-Area of surden regular Inductors/Coils-Topologies => might such about H-Flux-"through" CLOSED-Coils-Turns be ALTERED somehow ...like i.e. by altering the socalled Lenz´s Theoreme (Lenz´s Law)......YES....POSSIBLE......for i.e. the Historical Honoured Herr Lenz´s Theoreme has in Dogmes-Physics been too "mis-used" OUT of Original Theoreme´s Limits......(hardly never was such intended once-upon when the Lenz´s Theoreme was realized about/formulated....)......!!
WKR & have Yourselves a nice Day and Weekend ; and for Whom It relates : Happy Easter !
My kind Thanks about Your All hardlabored important Participations in & Contributions to The Honourable Course of OU !
-
@anyone
I got onto this thread a few days ago and was following it with great interest with the intention of replicating. It seems to be a good simple project for experimentation. When I got to this page (28) I noticed that the last entry was 21 March - 4 months ago. have I missed something?
Cheers
S
-
hi everyone
i don't know why its so hard for someone to accept that discharging a capacitor in a coil is the real source for free energy, even tesla says that capacitor is the most wonderful instrument ever been discovered. 8)
-
hi everyone
i don't know why its so hard for someone to accept that discharging a capacitor in a coil is the real source for free energy, even tesla says that capacitor is the most wonderful instrument ever been discovered. 8)
Dear Tito L. Oracion,
Tesla said it indeed but why?
Because he found that he could control the rate of discharge of the capacitor by the switching time, i.e. he used up the given amount of the stored energy in a shorter time than was needed to charge the same capacitor up. This way he got higher energy to use for his purposes than he could have got from a normal generator with which he had charged up the capacitor. BUT the 'price' he paid for this higher energy was that the capacitor discharged more quickly! i.e. the stored energy in the cap was used up more rapidly than the time needed for charging it up.
Of course this can be done, no problem with this, because it is up to you how quickly or slowly you are going to consume a certain amount of stored energy, either from a capacitor or from other energy storage device.
So there seems to be no free energy here unless you show it differently?
Thanks, Gyula
-
Dear Tito L. Oracion,
Tesla said it indeed but why?
Because he found that he could control the rate of discharge of the capacitor by the switching time, i.e. he used up the given amount of the stored energy in a shorter time than was needed to charge the same capacitor up. This way he got higher energy to use for his purposes than he could have got from a normal generator with which he had charged up the capacitor. BUT the 'price' he paid for this higher energy was that the capacitor discharged more quickly! i.e. the stored energy in the cap was used up more rapidly than the time needed for charging it up.
Of course this can be done, no problem with this, because it is up to you how quickly or slowly you are going to consume a certain amount of stored energy, either from a capacitor or from other energy storage device.
So there seems to be no free energy here unless you show it differently?
Thanks, Gyula
Hi sir good day ;D
Actually for me its not the rate of discharge that is important here, its the arrangement of capacitor discharging separate from the source to the coil, tom bearden showed it many times actually.and i got success on it!.
did you try discharging many caps sequentially on a coil? and charging them sequentially also?
take note:
NO BATTERY DISCHARGING!
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHY YOU CAN'T GET IT.
-
Hi sir good day ;D
Actually for me its not the rate of discharge that is important here, its the arrangement of capacitor discharging separate from the source to the coil, tom bearden showed it many times actually.and i got success on it!.
did you try discharging many caps sequentially on a coil? and charging them sequentially also?
take note:
NO BATTERY DISCHARGING!
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHY YOU CAN'T GET IT.
Hi Tito L. Oracion,
Thanks for the answer, and no, I have not tried discharging many caps sequentially on a coil yet, sounds interesting! And do you mean you always recharge the caps from the flyback pulse, also in sequence, once you started from the first cap charged up from a battery?
Unfortunately, it takes energy from the battery to charge a cap up for a start and all the switching (or discharging) sequence of the caps also consumes energy... This is what I found in case of energy transfer between two caps via a coil. Well, I do not rule out any clever solution that may bring a COP of around 1. Maybe you have found already a setup that works with a COP >1 ;) in this case my hat off to you and congratulations indeed. Perhaps you could throw some ideas on that as some bones to me?
I found your thread on this same topic here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6250.0 and unfortunately nobody answered your last question in the end of the thread:
"" is it efficient if we discharge a little the caps in a coil?
and is it possible if we do it in a sequence of multiple caps? ""
So now it seems you have answered your own question. When could you throw some bones? :) :D
Thanks, Gyula
-
Hi Tito L. Oracion,
Thanks for the answer, and no, I have not tried discharging many caps sequentially on a coil yet, sounds interesting! And do you mean you always recharge the caps from the flyback pulse, also in sequence, once you started from the first cap charged up from a battery?
Unfortunately, it takes energy from the battery to charge a cap up for a start and all the switching (or discharging) sequence of the caps also consumes energy... This is what I found in case of energy transfer between two caps via a coil. Well, I do not rule out any clever solution that may bring a COP of around 1. Maybe you have found already a setup that works with a COP >1 ;) in this case my hat off to you and congratulations indeed. Perhaps you could throw some ideas on that as some bones to me?
I found your thread on this same topic here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6250.0 and unfortunately nobody answered your last question in the end of the thread:
"" is it efficient if we discharge a little the caps in a coil?
and is it possible if we do it in a sequence of multiple caps? ""
So now it seems you have answered your own question. When could you throw some bones? :) :D
Thanks, Gyula
Hi sir good day
try it in a high voltage dc then make a pulse with a small current, yes we use energy input but a little only compared to the output it produce!
let one arm of the coil be connected already to the cap when charging it so that it becomes more efficient when caps is discharge , all we need is very small movement of the electron to produce a large output!
P.S. Bigger magwire makes strong magnetic field isn't it? 8)
Note:
BE CAREFULL :o
-
THANKS I ENJOY YOUR WORK CHEERS JOHN
-
hi everyone
i don't know why its so hard for someone to accept that discharging a capacitor in a coil is the real source for free energy, even Tesla says that capacitor is the most wonderful instrument ever been discovered. 8)
Simply because there is no overunity to be had from discharging a capacitor into a coil.
What you believe as overunity, is actually performed in everyday modern electronic devices.
I'm talking about the switched power supply. This is discharging a capacitor into a coil and
then stores the coil Bemf in the output capacitor. And there is no overunity what-so-ever.
In the best case, the switched power supply can reach 99% efficiency when using the best
components available, aka low ESR capacitors, LOW Rdson mosfets and the finest coils with
low resistance, very low hysteresis and eddy current losses.
All cases showing overunity while discharging coils or capacitors is always underunity.
Any overunity reports is just a clear sign of a person lacking the necessary measurement skills.
-
Simply because there is no overunity to be had from discharging a capacitor into a coil.
What you believe as overunity, is actually performed in everyday modern electronic devices.
I'm talking about the switched power supply. This is discharging a capacitor into a coil and
then stores the coil Bemf in the output capacitor. And there is no overunity what-so-ever.
In the best case, the switched power supply can reach 99% efficiency when using the best
components available, aka low ESR capacitors, LOW Rdson mosfets and the finest coils with
low resistance, very low hysteresis and eddy current losses.
All cases showing overunity while discharging coils or capacitors is always underunity.
Any overunity reports is just a clear sign of a person lacking the necessary measurement skills.
hi FC
try to study the ozone patent and your belief may be change ok ;D
i think your lacking of reading skills. lol. joke only hehehe ;D
-
hi FC
try to study the ozone patent and your belief may be change ok ;D
i think your lacking of reading skills. lol. joke only hehehe ;D
Hi Tito L. Oracion,
can you please post your working replication of the Ozone patent or someone else's that is demonstrating power in and out.
Thank you for sharing.
Luc
-
Hi Tito L. Oracion,
can you please post your working replication of the Ozone patent or someone else's that is demonstrating power in and out.
Thank you for sharing.
Luc
hi luc ;D
my device have a big similarities with this one.
watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvfi9ZpXKOY&videos=heCbKQQ_cZ8&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1
sorry this is all i can share :(
-
hi luc ;D
sorry this is all i can share :(
Why Tito L. Oracion can you not share ???
This is the very reason that this and other public Forums exist!!!
What is the point of participating here if you don't share ??? How can the world change if we don't share ???
Luc
-
Why Tito L. Oracion can you not share ???
This is the very reason that this and other public Forums exist!!!
What is the point of participating here if you don't share ??? How can the world change if we don't share ???
Luc
@ gotoluc
Don't worry too much about Tito, he's got some serious fall from grace to total GREED issues >:(
He started on this board with good intentions like http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5975.msg142206#msg142206 :
"I'm a born again Christian so
don't forget i love every body so be careful and take care!!!!.
lets save the EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6421.msg146833#msg146833 :
"This is an invitation to every body to include your free energy device in a purpose of eliminating scam, fakes free energy device by
the comment of our geniouses in the forum so that everyone will benefit. pleassssse... help our children our mother earth."
And http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6421.msg146651#msg146651 :
"Please share any real working schemATIC, techniques, videos, pictures here.
EVERYBODY IS WELCOME!!!
Discussion is good but working device is what we need ;)
Beneficiary => everyone, earth.
I believe this is the purpose of this forum is to share real working device.
God Bless,"
So as you can see he had no problem asking for help and sharing at first but like all typical OU claims he took the road of GREED when he apparently discovered something that could help us all!
Now he bounces from thread to thread saying he's got it but refuses to share his design or provide input/output measurements for everyone to look at.
This is the reason that after more than 10 years of following and researching OU I gave away my materials because of the frustration of people like Richard Willis and Tito coming on these boards and taking from us then running away when they find something...it's a shame really that GREED doesn't care about millions dying every year while the chase for fortunes continues.
In the meantime I've resolved to monitoring and possibly helping where I can but I've given too much time money and effort on scam artists and incomplete information and decided to wait until a real OU unit of useful power is fully disclosed replicated and proven to work before investing any more time building anything.
Regards,
Paul
-
Thanks Paul for taking the time to reply and also post this evidence of falsehood this member has chosen in the name of GOD.
I guess he will have to be born again to understand what this kind of selfishness has done to the world as the Eco system collapses :'(
Luc
-
As things stand right now, there are two Gods. You can deduce for yourself which one Tito has put his trust in!
-
Have you folks considered these claims being false and this being the reason of him not telling us anything.
As in most cases there is nothing to get exited over until verified proof is 100% validated.
Just ask Mark Dansie here at OU forum. He's had many years of experience while travelling the
world in pursuit of real overunity. So far the only proof he found was in self delusional inventors
not having the skill or know how to perform accurate measurements.
After reading this thread I'm 100% sure this is the case here as well.
-
accidental post
-
@ gotoluc
Don't worry too much about Tito, he's got some serious fall from grace to total GREED issues >:(
He started on this board with good intentions like http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5975.msg142206#msg142206 :
"I'm a born again Christian so
don't forget i love every body so be careful and take care!!!!.
lets save the EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
And http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6421.msg146833#msg146833 :
"This is an invitation to every body to include your free energy device in a purpose of eliminating scam, fakes free energy device by
the comment of our geniouses in the forum so that everyone will benefit. pleassssse... help our children our mother earth."
And http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6421.msg146651#msg146651 :
"Please share any real working schemATIC, techniques, videos, pictures here.
EVERYBODY IS WELCOME!!!
Discussion is good but working device is what we need ;)
Beneficiary => everyone, earth.
I believe this is the purpose of this forum is to share real working device.
God Bless,"
So as you can see he had no problem asking for help and sharing at first but like all typical OU claims he took the road of GREED when he apparently discovered something that could help us all!
Now he bounces from thread to thread saying he's got it but refuses to share his design or provide input/output measurements for everyone to look at.
This is the reason that after more than 10 years of following and researching OU I gave away my materials because of the frustration of people like Richard Willis and Tito coming on these boards and taking from us then running away when they find something...it's a shame really that GREED doesn't care about millions dying every year while the chase for fortunes continues.
In the meantime I've resolved to monitoring and possibly helping where I can but I've given too much time money and effort on scam artists and incomplete information and decided to wait until a real OU unit of useful power is fully disclosed replicated and proven to work before investing any more time building anything.
Regards,
Paul
Hi everyone good day ;D
@paul
i would like to thank you for reminding my previous post. please give me more time think please.
maybe your right, i'm suffering from greed problems maybe due to the crisis i'm facing, but i would like you to know that i have also families to protect and really using this free energy to earn money. so for me clues are enough to help others, because clues here in this forum are also the reason why i come up in this stage ok. hope you understand.
@ luc
i understand you brother. and i'm sorry if i hurt you.
@ others
i don't care what you want to think, its up to you don't bother yourself for me.
if you are following some of my post i believe you can get it and i'm always telling the truth.
OK! OK! OK!
YOU CAN GET FREE ENERGY FROM HIGH VOLTAGE SOURCE AND FROM THAT HIGH VOLTAGE LINE YOU CAN CONNECT UNLIMITED TRANSFORMERS ONE ARM IS CONNECTED TO THE HIGH VOLTAGE LINE AND ONE IS ON EARTH THEN ADD THEM BY SERIES OR PARALLEL ITS UP TO YOU AND FROM THERE YOU CAN GET EXCESS OK!!!
PS: YOU CAN MAKE HIGH VOLTAGE EASILY ISN'T IT.
ALSO: OZONE PATENT OF NIKOLA TESLA REALLY GIVES US FREE ENERGY OK CHEW IT!!!
WAIT: USING BATTERIES YOU CAN ALSO MAKE VERY HIGH VOLTAGE OK!
BYE! ;D
-
hi everyone
actually i already revealed everything in different topics and pages, well in that case they are in random state so if your really a researcher or a reader i believe you can get it.
PS: sometimes they are in a manner of open hidden info ok ???
-
Or you could just tell us instead of teasing us Tito!
-
ah... tit dont know nothing
i quit reading his post long ago...
he just done so much ''reading'' he thinks he can build perfect devices in his head
and ''never build them''...
well i got some more builds to try...
so i'm out
-
ah... tit dont know nothing
i quit reading his post long ago...
he just done so much ''reading'' he thinks he can build perfect devices in his head
and ''never build them''...
well i got some more builds to try...
so i'm out
ah...see... ok more better , don't just expect ok i like it i feel at peace.
yes i never build them, i done nothing ;D
a word of advice from a sorcerer: never quit from experiment and trials and study,i always say that capacitor is the main ingredient of free energy. don't believe me but believe from tesla ok.
sorry if i disturb you all from my post.
i think this is may last post. :(
Actually i have 6 different scheme of working free energy that's why when somebody is asking , i'm answering them from those six scheme so they could not really understand my answer sorry ;D ;D ;D
but the best for me is the ozone patent, because as you disconnect it connected very fast!, see that difference ? and in a speed of light it should make a returning back charge the battery ok.
sorry for my English i really cannot express very good in English. but i think i'm better than macedona cd oops sorry m cd ;D ;D ;D
Some one advice me for good ok and i would like to thank him for that. thanks am.
what i feel here is that there are many a.k.a. in one person ha! ha! ha! ha! ;D
tell me if i'm wrong ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
sorry if i'm having fun giving random info. ok.
that's it :)
thank you to all.
ps: kooler be cool ;D
your saying that i've done so much reading then i know nothing! conflict! :o
so that's what you think!
i think it is you who is nothing ;D ;D ;D
because even reading you cannot go along ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
ha ha ha ha ha you got some more build to try? or fry? lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
then you are out very fast wow its too fast your like an electron moving too fast ha ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D ;D
your acting like a free energy ;D
-
Or you could just tell us instead of teasing us Tito!
sorry sir :(
hi! you are correct all caps are in state of being charge then discharging them one at a time i mean extremely fast ok.
i'm using electric fan motor to do that ok.
good luck and goodbye!
-
Hello all,
this thread started sooooo nice...
result after 31 page.....NOTHING!!
Otto
-
@Tito L. Oracion
Just stay with us and keep feeding. This is alot of fun you know.
Actually, you can take most all coiling schemes and add a capacitor and a pulser to follow the damped waves produced by the ozone patent. The bigger the coils, the slower but stronger per pulse, plus great flyback. Or smaller and more coils in parallel with faster pulses, and still get great flyback. The basic principle is always the same. Short a high inductance coil over a battery at a certain frequency and add to it a parallel LC. You get two way movement. Even if this was not the original intent of the coiling scheme, using this method will show you some dynamics of your scheme that you would never have seen otherwise and may in fact open a door for further discovery. That's why I tried pushing @gotoluc to investigate this with his great methodical presentations. More guys would have caught onto this.
So, imagine having two or more complete ozone patent schemes in parallel working off the same pulser and one battery. Is there a limit? Don't think so.
-
Hello all,
this thread started sooooo nice...
result after 31 page.....NOTHING!!
Otto
@ otto
well, sorry!!!. >:(
maybe you can make it nice again ok. :P
but i notice you are included in page 31 ha!ha!ha! ;D ;D ;D ;D joke!
@ sir wattsup
thank you sir, maybe i'll come back some other time or not anymore. :)
cause i will build more to fry like kooler ;D
i salute you sir, your very kind, you have all my respect. :'(
bye. :)
don't worry i'll just watch from now on.
-
Hello all,
Im a member of various forums. People all around the world are surching for free energy and what is the result?? Free energy in the sence that you dont have to pay for it!! Im talking about electricity.
Can you buy such a device? Or have you heared that somebody is powering his home with such a device?
Sorry, I dont understand the people.
Has anybody readed what Tom Bearden wrote? Has anybody an understanding what hes talking about?
Yes, you all understand him!!
Maybe somebody tried what he was talking about?? Results??
It seems that your bills for electricity are not so big. Then I wish you all to pay them for the rest of your life. You dont deserve it better!!
Have a nice day.
Otto
PS: yes Im frustrated with the people on various forums because of a lot of PC heroes and no real workers.
-
I would love to know how is Beardon powering up his house.
We can all come up with theories and say Tesla this and Tesla that.
-
We can all come up with theories and say Tesla this and Tesla that.
That is why eperiments are needed.
-
hahaha...
i was just trying to get under tit-o skin
because he sure got under mine jump in the sm tpu section
making the remark quit messing with the tpu and go with the ozone patent
over and over ....etc...
i just think we should post our progress in the right part of the forum
best of luck folks...
-
Hello all,
Im a member of various forums. People all around the world are surching for free energy and what is the result?? Free energy in the sence that you dont have to pay for it!! Im talking about electricity.
Can you buy such a device? Or have you heared that somebody is powering his home with such a device?
Sorry, I dont understand the people.
Has anybody readed what Tom Bearden wrote? Has anybody an understanding what hes talking about?
Yes, you all understand him!!
Maybe somebody tried what he was talking about?? Results??
It seems that your bills for electricity are not so big. Then I wish you all to pay them for the rest of your life. You dont deserve it better!!
Have a nice day.
Otto
PS: yes Im frustrated with the people on various forums because of a lot of PC heroes and no real workers.
@otto
I was very happy to see you in your video. Here is a picture of part of my office/lab where I spend a great deal of time with my o-scope and my former pulse generator, now back to the frequency generator and mosfet (blah). I just purchased another pulse generator so I will be back in action very soon with the pulsing. I must have at least 100 types of coils lying around all over the place. It's a mess, I know, but most everything I need is here. lol
I am considering purchasing a real coil winder. I have seen many low cost ones for the straight coils, but the toroid winders are pretty expensive. That is a serious decision to make and I need more good excuses to convince my wife. lol
I am just saying all this to let you know you are NOT alone, and even more, you are greatly appreciated by all. There are many guys like you and me working and not only posting. Many will not post to not get hacked to bits.
As for other forums, I am registered at Energetic but have only made one post. The moderator there was nice enough to give me the same username. lol It is a question of time to go through so many web sites and threads, etc. I rather spend most of my time trying new things, so I usually stick around here instead.
Anyways @otto, please do not lose heart. You are on a good track and hopefully with others there will be a way. You know, it is not all bad to have other guys looking into so many things and bring them on the table as this saves me so much time to simply learn and not have to look for this and that all the time. Time, time, time. I know it is the biggest problem.
-
Hello all,
@wattsup
you have a nice lab. I wish my would be like yours, nice and warm. My garage is a lage one and ice cold because to warm it up would cost me a lot of money that I dont have.
If you allow a little advice: dont buy a coil winder. The point is that we are pulsating our coils and this coils are SHORT!!
Thanks for your kind words. No, Im not losing my heart! And Im NOT giving up. Never.
The problem 2 days ago was that I used a electrolytic cap for the first time since Im working with coils.
I thought about Bearden and his words: charge a cap without current, disconnect the cap from the power supply and discharge the cap into a load.
First I made it with my hand. A charge and then a discharge.
As I saw I was not fast enough to charge this cap without a current but...OK, I had to live with that.
Then I thought about MOSFETs and how to do the job with them.
I didnt need to look into my papers to see how Bearden did it ot at least how he only showed to do it. Its memorized in my little brain.
The end result after 2 hours of work was that I was frozen but satisfied: its the first time I saw a GLOWING of my bulb with 24V/100mA from the power supply.
Yes, nothing spectacular but sorry, I never saw a 100W bulb glowing with such a current!!!
Of course it was the first try but .....heeeey, Im a coil winder and this means I can do it better. Muuuuch better.
The end result could be a TPU or something else, I dont know but its worth to work on it.
And of course, as Im using a oridinary cap the setup is not working without current but .....Im satisfied.
Otto
-
@otto
I was very happy to see you in your video. Here is a picture of part of my office/lab where I spend a great deal of time with my o-scope and my former pulse generator, now back to the frequency generator and mosfet (blah). I just purchased another pulse generator so I will be back in action very soon with the pulsing. I must have at least 100 types of coils lying around all over the place. It's a mess, I know, but most everything I need is here. lol
I am considering purchasing a real coil winder. I have seen many low cost ones for the straight coils, but the toroid winders are pretty expensive. That is a serious decision to make and I need more good excuses to convince my wife. lol
I am just saying all this to let you know you are NOT alone, and even more, you are greatly appreciated by all. There are many guys like you and me working and not only posting. Many will not post to not get hacked to bits.
As for other forums, I am registered at Energetic but have only made one post. The moderator there was nice enough to give me the same username. lol It is a question of time to go through so many web sites and threads, etc. I rather spend most of my time trying new things, so I usually stick around here instead.
Anyways @otto, please do not lose heart. You are on a good track and hopefully with others there will be a way. You know, it is not all bad to have other guys looking into so many things and bring them on the table as this saves me so much time to simply learn and not have to look for this and that all the time. Time, time, time. I know it is the biggest problem.
Hi wattsup.
I noticed the library up top, do you need more books, I have plenty, lol, I am sure glad the internet has saved some space for me because I wouldn't have room to live.
sincerely
Jerry ;)
-
@ everyone good day ;D
i apologize :(
thank you and good bye :)
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!! ;D
Take care on your experiments. ;)
-
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!! ;D
@Tito,
You said this last year :-\
-
@Tito,
You said this last year :-\
@master bate
So what's the problem? >:(
i'm just making greetings,
last year is Christmas then going Christmas again. what is in your mind
you're to much sensitive like tesla. ;D
-
you're to much sensitive like tesla. ;D
Hi,
Are you referring to Nikola Tesla? Was he sensitive?
Is anyone showing any good proof of a "free energy" device in this thread?
Paul
-
@ All
I took the time to re-read the whole thread...I cannot come to an understanding of what was presented and what went wrong here, was there errors in all the circuits and calculations that messed up this project presented in the first diagram function or not? Is it OU or not OU? Why did it die?
@ Tito
Sorry for being so hard on you, I know you've dropped a lot of hints all over the forum, but that doesn't help us come out with a replicable project that turns a pulsed primary into a pulsed secondary and so on to workable Current AND Voltage=Power unit to create useful energy...Are you telling us that you really have it figured out and working?
If so, why can't you shroud your circuit in a black box with nothing but 4 wires, 2 for input and 2 for output and let someone on the forum come and take measurements? WinonAli has already dealt with reputable people from here do it with his circuit and improved it in the process! It would at least convince some of us to listen to you, right now all you have is claims and no evidence except for hints, I'm sorry but a lot of people are skeptics.
I guess the only solution in the end is to come up with a name for your invention and open a new thread for people interested and put all the clues in one thread so people like me and others can go to only one place to try and figure your puzzle there, not everywhere on the forum!
All of the above is meant as constructive criticism and not intended as offensive, forgive me if I stepped on anyone's toes.
Regards,
Paul
-
@ All
I took the time to re-read the whole thread...I cannot come to an understanding of what was presented and what went wrong here, was there errors in all the circuits and calculations that messed up this project presented in the first diagram function or not? Is it OU or not OU? Why did it die?
@ Tito
Sorry for being so hard on you, I know you've dropped a lot of hints all over the forum, but that doesn't help us come out with a replicable project that turns a pulsed primary into a pulsed secondary and so on to workable Current AND Voltage=Power unit to create useful energy...Are you telling us that you really have it figured out and working?
If so, why can't you shroud your circuit in a black box with nothing but 4 wires, 2 for input and 2 for output and let someone on the forum come and take measurements? WinonAli has already dealt with reputable people from here do it with his circuit and improved it in the process! It would at least convince some of us to listen to you, right now all you have is claims and no evidence except for hints, I'm sorry but a lot of people are skeptics.
I guess the only solution in the end is to come up with a name for your invention and open a new thread for people interested and put all the clues in one thread so people like me and others can go to only one place to try and figure your puzzle there, not everywhere on the forum!
All of the above is meant as constructive criticism and not intended as offensive, forgive me if I stepped on anyone's toes.
Regards,
Paul
@paul
I'll do that some other time, i'm too much busy for now.
don't worry i understand all of you ok.
somebody beleives me somebody don't
WHY?
BECAUSE SOMEBODY KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING, AM I CORRECT?
@ SOMEONE
I CAN FEEL SOMEBODY THE FEELING OF DESPERATE ;D HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
@ master bate
if not greeting makes you happy ok , i will not greet anymore
you do not want good luck? ok
so badluck! ;D
-
can we use 100% Al wire to make a coil?
-
Hello all,
this thread started sooooo nice...
result after 31 page.....NOTHING!!
Otto
When i see any thread to any forum claiming OU, i jump to the end of it... As usual nothing works as claimed.
it is time to notice the trend. Hope is human feature... but it is being exploited in such a degree by inventors wannabe or hoaxes that renders the whole FE research depressing.
Actually, the whole forum, even though has some bizarre observations be made at various fields, is far from an utilization point of view.
Hope dies last, my friends, but let not be manipulated by hope as religions do to the people. They sell hope and harvest money and power.
Baroutologos
-
Tito,
If you should happen to come back here sometime I hope you will consider this:
If you are actually able to patent your device, at a cost of several thousand dollars, and it is indeed free energy, you will never get it to market because the powers that be will step in and take it in the name of "national security" which is in actuality the security of the big oil companies, or you will discover that some major company has a patent just like yours which just happens to have cleared the patent office days before yours did, so now yours cannot be patented. This applies no mater WHAT country you live in because every country needs oil.
Your surest course to make money is to release your information here, have it verified and duplicated by others around the world so it can never be lost or patended out from under you. Then sell your plans or kits on the internet and list the people here who have verified that it is a working viable unit. The "Water-for-Gas" guy has made over a million with a crappy product in exactly this manner. If you ask the people on this forum I am sure they would tell you that they are willing to pay for something that is proven to work Many people who could build it themselves would STILL pay for a kit or instructions because it would be simpler than taking the time to buy all the parts and assemble it.
So much for advice, now another thought
I am really tired of people who come to these forums with a purpose other than to disclose exactly what they have so that others can test or duplicate their results and further the cause of energy research. Why would they say they have something and not disclose exactly what it is and how it works? Why not just keep their mouth shut? Would they post videos of themselves eating a huge meal so that the people out there who have no food can watch and suffer? Are they so desperate for attention that they come here so others will beg them for little scraps of information? To all of you who would do this, I say share, or shut up and go away. Either tell us exactly how to do this step by step so even a beginner can duplicate it, or hold your silence. My mother always told me that unless I had enough of something to share with everybody it was impolite to eat it in front of them. Some of you should have had a mother like mine. The world needs this kind of information, people are dying for lack of it. If money is the only issue, it should not be one because I have shown you exactly how to make money with an idea like this, and if you have a conscious, you will do the right thing. Don't say you have given us all the pieces and all we have to do is put it together. Put it together for us. You will not only make millions, you will make history and your name will always be remembered. What more could you ask for?
-
If you ask the people on this forum I am sure they would tell you that they are willing to pay for something that is proven to work Many people who could build it themselves would STILL pay for a kit or instructions because it would be simpler than taking the time to buy all the parts and assemble it.
yes tito do it
-
EXCELLENT Points DBowling. You did such a SUPERB job explaining your points that I posted it over on this Thread too.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7987.msg215490#new
.
-
Excellent Said!
Baroutologos
-
Sharing only hurts those who are selfish and greedy.
-
Tito,
If you should happen to come back here sometime I hope you will consider this:
If you are actually able to patent your device, at a cost of several thousand dollars, and it is indeed free energy, you will never get it to market because the powers that be will step in and take it in the name of "national security" which is in actuality the security of the big oil companies, or you will discover that some major company has a patent just like yours which just happens to have cleared the patent office days before yours did, so now yours cannot be patented. This applies no mater WHAT country you live in because every country needs oil.
Your surest course to make money is to release your information here, have it verified and duplicated by others around the world so it can never be lost or patended out from under you. Then sell your plans or kits on the internet and list the people here who have verified that it is a working viable unit. The "Water-for-Gas" guy has made over a million with a crappy product in exactly this manner. If you ask the people on this forum I am sure they would tell you that they are willing to pay for something that is proven to work Many people who could build it themselves would STILL pay for a kit or instructions because it would be simpler than taking the time to buy all the parts and assemble it.
So much for advice, now another thought
I am really tired of people who come to these forums with a purpose other than to disclose exactly what they have so that others can test or duplicate their results and further the cause of energy research. Why would they say they have something and not disclose exactly what it is and how it works? Why not just keep their mouth shut? Would they post videos of themselves eating a huge meal so that the people out there who have no food can watch and suffer? Are they so desperate for attention that they come here so others will beg them for little scraps of information? To all of you who would do this, I say share, or shut up and go away. Either tell us exactly how to do this step by step so even a beginner can duplicate it, or hold your silence. My mother always told me that unless I had enough of something to share with everybody it was impolite to eat it in front of them. Some of you should have had a mother like mine. The world needs this kind of information, people are dying for lack of it. If money is the only issue, it should not be one because I have shown you exactly how to make money with an idea like this, and if you have a conscious, you will do the right thing. Don't say you have given us all the pieces and all we have to do is put it together. Put it together for us. You will not only make millions, you will make history and your name will always be remembered. What more could you ask for?
Your right sir, you made me think for that.
let me get other's point. then i will decide for that.
I am wondering why tesla did not give a detail of the amplification of power?
The magnifying transmitter should have a receiver to produce power right?
and now i am not sure if i just rediscovered that or it was really done by tesla.
but from his analogy of stone ice thrown from top of the hill of ice why i discover that.
is anyone don't know really yet how to amplify small power?
or you already know it and just fooling me? and pretending that you don't know it.
is there a big difference with the magnifying transmitter than our transmitters today?
i need some answers for these will help me decide.
sorry for my english.
-
Hi Tito,
I try to answer for what I think I know correctly.
The magnifying transmitter should have a receiver to produce power right?
Yes, he thought the receivers can be setup anywhere in the Earth, distance and number of receivers do not matter.
...from his analogy of stone ice thrown from top of the hill of ice...
Tesla used this as an analogy: to use a small input to induce a big output, in nature such phenomena occurs.
is there a big difference with the magnifying transmitter than our transmitters today?
Yes, there is. He used ground currents for transferring power, present day transmitters use Hertzian waves to communicate, ground current is very little or does not exist in the design of them. What is more, even in his days nobody started using ground currents as he suggested (longitudial waves via the Earth) but Hertzian waves.
is anyone don't know really yet how to amplify small power?
Well, I dont think anyone here knows it except you... I am affraid.
Gyula
-
@ gyulasun
Well, I dont think anyone here knows it except you... I am affraid.
why are you afraid?
-
Hi Tito L.
Well it is an English usage, means unfortunately, it does not mean real fear, ok?
I meant I was sorry to say that nobody knows how to do your device except you.
So what will you decide? patent or share? or neither?
Thanks, Gyula
-
Hi Tito L.
Well it is an English usage, means unfortunately, it does not mean real fear, ok?
I meant I was sorry to say that nobody knows how to do your device except you.
So what will you decide? patent or share? or neither?
Thanks, Gyula
now i remember why tesla did not share the knowledge in electric car, that is because of bad critisism.
i feel so disappointed today with the post of many member, i'm so sorry but i think i'll just shut my mouth.
-
Hi Tito L.
Yes they bang on you because "they feel being teased and irritated by your excess energy claims, and you do not show any proof, you have only talk" -this is what they see and feel. This is a natural response, no?
Yes, everyone should calm down and test many things themselves but there will be always armchair posters, who never use a soldering iron etc.
Otto says they are the PC heroes.
So consider these and you may rethink your shutting up, I hope. You got help from this forum earlier.
Happy Christmas!
Gyula
-
Hi Tito L.
Yes they bang on you because "they feel being teased and irritated by your excess energy claims, and you do not show any proof, you have only talk" -this is what they see and feel. This is a natural response, no?
Yes, everyone should calm down and test many things themselves but there will be always armchair posters, who never use a soldering iron etc.
Otto says they are the PC heroes.
So consider these and you may rethink your shutting up, I hope. You got help from this forum earlier.
Happy Christmas!
Gyula
OH YES, otto is not a pc heroes, and he really teach everything. ;D
i admit that i got help here but i learned more on tesla's paper's and books, i learned many hints also here.
happy Christmas too :)
-
@Tito
Quote:
"i admit that i got help here but i learned more on tesla's paper's and books, i learned many hints also here."
I follow the same views as Tesla when he once stated "there is very little invention in it", there are many people who have claimed to have invented many things and most often they claim the invention or idea is their's and their's alone. However, if one draws a timeline for these inventors it is very easy to see "where" they got their suppossed idea from, who influenced them and from where the actual technology originated. Hence, in the last 10 years I have seen very little "invention", only inventors making claims from technology borrowed from someone else and claimed to be their own. I sincerly hope you do not fall into this trap where one's ego does not let them give credit where credit is due. I have a different perspective than most on this issue, I have invented nothing, I have only rendered my vision of others dreams which can hopefully improve upon them.
EDIT: I should mention I have nothing to do with this nor do I claim to and if something I did or published was involved I would rather my name never be mentioned.
Regards
AC
-
@Tito
This is your problem to not disclose what you have. Just think of one thing. What happens if you go to sleep tonight and never wake up. This I think every night. Last night I was up till 4am working on my toroid coil and other stuff. I then prepare a post to show it immediately and what I want to do with it, always just in case I do not wake up the next morning.
So you are now dead. Where will your family be the next day with your invention or device. They enjoy the device now while you are alive. But what will they do when and/if you are gone. This is the question you must resolve for yourself and not think you will live forever.
It is very simple. If you have a device that works, and you are not busy 24 hours a day making copies of this device, selling this device, or doing any effort at all to spread this knowledge, then it is like God gave you a life and you refuse to do anything with it but feed your own ego. This is not good my friend.
Then there is the guy that will wait and wait, so long that someone else comes along and discovers the same thing and publishes it first. Then you will be sorry for being so quiet.
Look we are not here to be your OU psychologist. You are a grown man with enough brains to figure it out. Just realize that there are many that tried before you, who are smarter, richer and maybe with better English skills who have tried but failed to make their real mark on the world, simply because they did not realize that the overunity cause does not follow the same laws as regular commercial devices. Only sharing and getting the information out to the most people possible will ensure your name will live. Greed and keeping to oneself is dangerous business and patenting promising untold riches is the perfect carrot of the power mongers to keep you isolated and an easy target. You fall for that and you are dead or shutted up very well. Just ask SM.
-
@all
Do not be suplicating for something that is not going to be given or shared with everyone as the thread title states.
Go to jule thief thread where @gadgetmall has closed the loop on a joule thief light. He has posted a video link on the same thread.
Even though it cannot run a dishwasher or a refrigerator, it is cool to have a light that charges its own battery when there is no electricity around.
Jesus
-
Scaled up, Gadgets circuit may be able to run individual appliances or heaters, jesus.
Regards...
-
@All,
I don't think Tito is genuine. If you have noticed, in some posts his English is very good and in some others it is quite poor.
If any of you developed some kind of device, either you would want to share it at least with a few in which case, you would pull back from public forums and privately work on it. Bruce_TPU comes to mind here. Or, you would want to patent it in the vain hope of huge financial gain in which case, again you totally disappear and work on your patent and perfecting your prototype for subsequent demos to would be investors.
-
@All,
I don't think Tito is genuine. If you have noticed, in some posts his English is very good and in some others it is quite poor.
so, what is the connection of being genuine with the English?
i think you need some plastering materials to use it in your mouth? oopps joke ;D
-
@All,
If any of you developed some kind of device, either you would want to share it at least with a few in which case, you would pull back from public forums and privately work on it. Bruce_TPU comes to mind here. Or, you would want to patent it in the vain hope of huge financial gain in which case, again you totally disappear and work on your patent and perfecting your prototype for subsequent demos to would be investors.
i'm not what you are thinking man! maybe you!, because you are saying this!
-
Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International "Open Source"
Free Energy Research Forum
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International "Open Source"
Free Energy Research Forum
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
sorry ram, sometimes there is a scandal part in this forum. ;D
-
@Tito
This is your problem to not disclose what you have. Just think of one thing. What happens if you go to sleep tonight and never wake up. This I think every night. Last night I was up till 4am working on my toroid coil and other stuff. I then prepare a post to show it immediately and what I want to do with it, always just in case I do not wake up the next morning.
So you are now dead. Where will your family be the next day with your invention or device. They enjoy the device now while you are alive. But what will they do when and/if you are gone. This is the question you must resolve for yourself and not think you will live forever.
It is very simple. If you have a device that works, and you are not busy 24 hours a day making copies of this device, selling this device, or doing any effort at all to spread this knowledge, then it is like God gave you a life and you refuse to do anything with it but feed your own ego. This is not good my friend.
Then there is the guy that will wait and wait, so long that someone else comes along and discovers the same thing and publishes it first. Then you will be sorry for being so quiet.
Look we are not here to be your OU psychologist. You are a grown man with enough brains to figure it out. Just realize that there are many that tried before you, who are smarter, richer and maybe with better English skills who have tried but failed to make their real mark on the world, simply because they did not realize that the overunity cause does not follow the same laws as regular commercial devices. Only sharing and getting the information out to the most people possible will ensure your name will live. Greed and keeping to oneself is dangerous business and patenting promising untold riches is the perfect carrot of the power mongers to keep you isolated and an easy target. You fall for that and you are dead or shutted up very well. Just ask SM.
hi sir wattsup ;D
i would like to thank you for saying that sir, currently i feel that i am in the middle, there is something in me that i am going to reveal it but there is also that refuse, and i want a peaceful life contented with this free energy, i actually want everybody to discover this themselves and have fun with it. there is really a little invention in there. but it is true, and i apologize for my behavior for sometimes i feel weird ;D
-
I have a limited number of 1000uf 16V Bi-Polar / Non-Polarised electrolytic capacitors available, if anyone is interested.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120531884230
There are an unusualy high value for BP's and may have a place in OU applications etc.
-
Scaled up, Gadgets circuit may be able to run individual appliances or heaters, jesus.
Regards...
********************************************
Cap-Z-ro, where is posible to buy one gadget circuit able to light a small led light?..complete and ready to conect the bulb..I live in a poor comunity in Central Mexico..shortage and blackout is normal everyday..I´m not a expert in electricity but every day I am reading all progres here..if you or any or other expert here can direct to get one or build one for me it would be very appreciated..I´m willing to work very hard to get the money to pay..no expecting to run big motors..I know that is not posible..but more than happy to have some light when everythyng is dark here.any info will be apreciated
Thank you!!
PS I had great hope when Winsonali promised me one of his artifact..but I don´t see anymore ::)..wishing He be fine and dark forces don´t cause him damage.
-
Hi kalakaflaca,
I certainly do not qualify as a an expert in electronics...I'm here picking things up here and there, in hopes of contributing an idea or 2 to the cause.
I would recommend that you check out the 'joule thief' related threads for efficient lighting with 'led's'.
Best of luck in your quest.
Regards...
-
Could a relay be used to mechanically switch the "short" to charge the cap? If the relay will work I would imagine you could pulse it with a circuit similar to the joule thief replacing the LED with the relay. I believe I read the joule thief pulses something like 20,000 times per sec, I just don't know if the relay could keep pace.
-
Could a relay be used to mechanically switch the "short" to charge the cap? If the relay will work I would imagine you could pulse it with a circuit similar to the joule thief replacing the LED with the relay. I believe I read the joule thief pulses something like 20,000 times per sec, I just don't know if the relay could keep pace.
hi window
good idea! ;D but mechanical relay cannot make a pulse of 20,000 times per second :-\ maybe a solid state relay can.
and there should have a timing technique. cause its none sense to charge a fully charge caps. :(
-
True, my thought was that if the relay would work then perhaps 2 would satisfy the charge/discharge function. One relay being normally open and one normally closed. I my mind if they are both pulsed by the same source their timing should be exactly opposite of each other. You could then charge with one and discharge with the other. Like that animated pic I saw around the beginning somewhere.
-
I dont remember this thread here. Tito had shown this guys vids as an example a few times.
Reading it over, Im getting the gist of the idea. I think. :o
When it comes to thinking of how an OU device process might work, first we want to an amount of input and some larger output when it comes to power.
Paul Laurence was a big deterrent in this thread. I remember he was an auss. ;)
Bearden said a special wire or conductor is needed to increase relaxation time.
From what Im understanding is, the coil made from this wire will accept a pulsed potential put across it, but there is a delay of sorts before the electrons begin to flow. And after the potential is taken away, the coil seems to believe that the potential hasnt been taken away yet, and current begins to flow.
So pulse the coil, and current flows after, thus no current from the source.
So, can a coil be made with copper, instead of 98%Al 2%Iron, to get this function?
NRG used what he claimed to be a bifi coil, with the 2 conductors connected in parallel. Not a series bifi. And he said there is a reason for having the 2 conductors wound together instead of just 1, but never explained it.
I wonder if there is a difference, and what it is? The best way to compare is to wind 1 coil wit 2 parallel wires and another with larger single wire, to get similar sized coil along with the same resistance.
He said the coil was loosely wound.
I was thinking that a bifi coil, series bifi, that the capacitance could be charged in the bifi, maybe before current flows. Maybe. Discharge a tiny cap at HV, then see if the coil discharges to a load or cap with any significance.
Just thinking. ;)
Mags
-
Bifi coils interest me because of what Tesla said about the tremendous amount of horse power that can be derived.
Im not sure what he means by that. Or how we might go about doing it. There have been some interesting things done with them it seems. Luc, NRG and Zeropoint132.
Zeropoints self running, no bearing Bedini, he claimed 4000 turns bifi. 1 of the windings was like 30awg and the other 26awg. Something like that. The point is, why the difference in wire size and why so many turns?
Was thinking on it. Just to amuse myself. ;) ;D
There is a type of capacitor that is called asymetric. One plate has more area than the other. This could be a possible reason for the diff in wire size. Utkin pdf talks about asymetric capacitors. It describes a coax cable as a possible asymetric capacitor, where the shield has more surface area than the signal wire inside.
Im pondering a possible connection there. Not done yet. ;D
Or maybe the difference is to make the coil more dense, but has bifi capacitance to work with. Like the 2 windings in bifi, do their thing while the passing magnet is inducing a charge in the coil, but only the heavier winding is used to push the magnet after the pass using the stored charge.
The 4000 turns. Thats quite a bit. If we look at a neon transformer secondary, there are probably thousands of turns. If one understands the function of an AV plug connected to 1 end of the neon secondary, then one can understand that charge in the open ended secondary while the neon transformer is operating, that charge is being compressed and decompressed from one end of the secondary winding to the other, pumping into 1 of the diodes of the AV plug, then sucking out of the other diode, charging a cap.
I believe that the longer the winding of the secondary, the more pumping that can be had 1 ended.
So if we have a 4000 turn bifi, with the 2 coils connected in series, but at the series connection we have a diode, and leave the other 2 coil ends open, then a magnet pass will charge the bifi capacitance, through the diode. 4000 turns I could imagine a possible 1uf maybe. This charge might be fairly high voltage, stored in the capacitance of the 2 windings.
When a rotor magnet approaches the coil, the field lines that are cutting the coil on the approaching side will cause current to flow through the coil in one direction, and as the mag passes center, and the mag field cuts the departure side of the coil, currents will flow in the other direction in the coil. This is why we get an AC waveform of the generator coil.
Lenz. If the gen coil is loaded or shorted, when the mag approaches the coil, the currents in the coil produce a like field, opposing the magnets movement by repelling through the approach. Drag. And when the mag passes center and cuts the departure side of the coil, currents in the coil are reversed, causing an opposite field to the magnet, pulling or attracting the magnet. Further drag. Its funny when ya think about it. ;)
Just thinking in simple terms. Now we add a reed switch to the open ends of the bifi coil with the diode making the series connection of the 2 windings.
The capacitance of the bifi can be considered a load. So when the mag approaches the coil, reed is open, the bifi capacitance is charged through the diode. When the mag passes center, we time the reed to wait till the mag is just at the outer edge of the departing side of the coil, then close the reed. This charge in the bifi cap, when the reed closes, will push the rotor mag away from the coil. ;D
I dont know if it will work. Its just a simplified version of how I think a Zeropoint motor 'might' work. I dont know if the drag while charging the bifi cap would be detrimental to it all yet. Simple idea though.
Ive got to get more wire. Had a coil made but used the wire for other stuff when I could not get Z's circuit(there were 2 circuits and they were different) to work. But I didnt have this clear simple idea in mind at the time.
Bifi coils. How do we get them to do what Tesla had claimed? We have to try some different things I suppose. Ive got a couple ideas that are different. Im going to dig in for a bit and see what happens. ;)
Mags
-
Loner
I have nothing but grattitude for your contribution,That post is a true Gift !
So simple and helpful!!
Have a happy holiday.
Thx
Chet
Ps I am sending you a PM
-
Even though no one has posted here for a while, I was led here from another post and felt I just had to comment because there seems to ALWAYS be a LOT of confusion about Tesla's comments about BiFi coils.
First, Tesla is referring to Flat coils for the most part. A standard coil wound BiFi has the almost the same type of effect, but would be a lot more complex to understand. The stray cap values introduced in a standard wind will be hard to determine, but the crossing of the cap values does destroy part of the effect. I won't get into those details for this, but be assured I have done my research here.
So, using a flat coil, wound normally, the internal cap value is from 1 turn to the next, as stated by Tesla in his patents. (100 turns, 100V, 1 Volt per turn!) Simple to see, right? Now wind BiFi, and connect in series and the picture is that the cap value has 1/2 the entire voltage across the coil ON EVERY TURN. (100 turns, 100V, 50V per turn!) This is on both sides of every turn, as well. I forget the number, but Tesla stated that it was somewhere in the order of 200000 times the energy storage.
If this doesn't explain the reasons for the increased power, then there is nothing I can do. It should also explain why a standard coil (solenoid type) has a different effect, as the windings on top of the layer below DO NOT have the entire 1/2 the cap value, so the internal interactions drastically decrease the external effects. (Try to imagine the larger cap values forcing small areas to reverse the flow and this should be obvious...) That little bit of info is from testing, not reading. I guess This will be ignored anyway, so I hope this info helps someone... Also please remember that open-ended coils are not linear with respect to current. (I.E. Different currents will flow at different points in the coil, contrary to what is taught in basic electronics. More advanced learning describes this, but not in such a simplified form.)
-
You are on the right track Google and company!
Here is a thought. What happens when you disruptively discharge a cap into such a coil?
-
Hi everyone good day ;D
@paul
i would like to thank you for reminding my previous post. please give me more time think please.
maybe your right, i'm suffering from greed problems maybe due to the crisis i'm facing, but i would like you to know that i have also families to protect and really using this free energy to earn money. so for me clues are enough to help others, because clues here in this forum are also the reason why i come up in this stage ok. hope you understand.
@ luc
i understand you brother. and i'm sorry if i hurt you.
@ others
i don't care what you want to think, its up to you don't bother yourself for me.
if you are following some of my post i believe you can get it and i'm always telling the truth.
OK! OK! OK!
YOU CAN GET FREE ENERGY FROM HIGH VOLTAGE SOURCE AND FROM THAT HIGH VOLTAGE LINE YOU CAN CONNECT UNLIMITED TRANSFORMERS ONE ARM IS CONNECTED TO THE HIGH VOLTAGE LINE AND ONE IS ON EARTH THEN ADD THEM BY SERIES OR PARALLEL ITS UP TO YOU AND FROM THERE YOU CAN GET EXCESS OK!!!
PS: YOU CAN MAKE HIGH VOLTAGE EASILY ISN'T IT.
ALSO: OZONE PATENT OF NIKOLA TESLA REALLY GIVES US FREE ENERGY OK CHEW IT!!!
WAIT: USING BATTERIES YOU CAN ALSO MAKE VERY HIGH VOLTAGE OK!
BYE! ;D
Mr. Tito's hint unlocked :
Do we remember Chernetsky and Alex Frolov, do we remember half Graetz rectification circuit ? Mr tito is clearly indicating that only.
--- Mr. Teslonian
And thanks Mr Smith for welcoming me here. :)
-
[deleted}
Regs,
D.J
-
wow, there is quite a load of info on this post to absorb. I'm just getting started here, in electronics in general, also! I've got to go back and start reading this thread thoroughly from page one, but I'd like to throw this out there in case it hasn't been brought up yet. About the original style circuit that was posted on page one and discussed several pages thereafter, has anyone tried true Tesla bifilar and/or trifilar coils to amplify the voltage even further? I was watching something earlier today that showed the true Tesla bifilar coil making a 4x stronger magnetic field/voltage spike over a regularly wound coil.... just a thought. I'm definitely going to go thru this thread and consider doing some relative experiments once I sort through all the info!
-
Loner - That is some fantastic info you laid down in such simple wording. I had to copy it to notepad and save it! :) I'm reading thru this thread in such a way that I can absorb as much of the info as possible, because it is obvious to me that this is really going to lead somewhere, it's not just foolish, out-there theories and crazy babbling. Not at all....
Magluvin - Sounds like something worth trying to me! I know I'm new to all of this, but I have the same gift that Tesla had, the gift of 'mentally engineering & testing ideas'... I want to throw this out there.... about the use of two different wire sizes on the same coil.... if you are to picture the electricity moving thru the coil, which wire is it going to make it all the way thru first?? The one with least resistance = the larger wire. By using two different sizes, you are causing the electrons to move thru one wire faster than the other.... I'm not sure what effect this has on capacitance, but I'm guessing it is something of significance either in capacitance, or in function to the specific device. From what I am gathering, having the electrons complete a 'circuit' (lacking a better term) thru one wire first, you might be able to 'trick' your device into thinking that the source is still connected, while there is still a build-up of electrons in the thinner wire for you to harness to charge your caps. Maybe I'm completely off-base here, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.....
I still have a whole lot to learn... but once I learn how most of these things function and what effects different things have, I'll be able to picture things in my head and formulate ideas, and make it so I don't waste a bunch of time trying things that aren't going to work anyway. That same gift is probably the reason why Tesla was able to progress so quickly and get so far in his work. I'm ecstatic that he passed it on to me! :P hahaha
-
Hello Everyone,
Is there anyone on this thread who has the collection of videos put on youtube by NRGfromthevacuum? I think the guy's name is Mike... Most of the links I've come upon in this thread are either now maked as private or as unavailable... There was someone named phazonxl that had a few - maybe 4 of Mike's videos up but when I went back to download them they were gone...
At any rate, if someone has all of his videos, I'd like very much to talk to you about getting a copy. Please send me a private message so we can work out the details...
Best regards to all,
Luther
-
Hello Everyone,
Is there anyone on this thread who has the collection of videos put on youtube by NRGfromthevacuum? I think the guy's name is Mike... Most of the links I've come upon in this thread are either now maked as private or as unavailable... There was someone named phazonxl that had a few - maybe 4 of Mike's videos up but when I went back to download them they were gone...
At any rate, if someone has all of his videos, I'd like very much to talk to you about getting a copy. Please send me a private message so we can work out the details...
Best regards to all,
Luther
If it's the same guy I'm thinking of, he had some pretty neat experiments with pulsed DC using a 555 timer switch (astable setup). He was adjusting the resistance to hit the right frequency to bring either a MOT, or sometimes an ignition coil into resonance, and getting that bright white light from cold electricity, or green sparks from the brushes of motors.
Great videos. He was one of the first to open up this area with videos. I think people could still learn some things from what he was demonstrating. As I recall, resonance was key in getting some great effects. I suspect that at the right frequency, he was able to use his circuit to excite the electrostatic environment so that radiant energy would pour in from the ambient.
Bob
-
Thanks for the response Bob! As it turned out, I found an old backup I'd made and I have all of his videos there. He was using this meter that I was curious about - mainly because it has a fully lit LCD screen and displays both in a pseudo "analog" display and then a digital readout just beneath that. I know I've seen that meter somewhere but for the life of me I cannot find anything about it now. If you or anyone else can tell me what this meter is I'd really appreciate it!
Also, about his videos, I think they are VERY worthy of study now. After seeing Paul Babcock's demonsration video, these videos from NRG are all the more relevant... I wish I could contact the guy but who knows where he's gone off to... :(
All the best,
Luther
-
Hi Luther,
Probably you are looking for such multimeters here:
http://www.muchbuy.com/digital-analog-multimeter-kt7030-yellow.html (http://www.muchbuy.com/digital-analog-multimeter-kt7030-yellow.html)
http://www.dx.com/p/kt7030-digital-dual-display-analogue-multimeter-tester-300027#.U2ayoaKN310 (http://www.dx.com/p/kt7030-digital-dual-display-analogue-multimeter-tester-300027#.U2ayoaKN310)
The type is KT7030 or AX7030 (and there is KT7032 too here: http://www.sz-wholesaler.com/p/142/144-2/analog-digital-multimeter-kt7032-12967.html (http://www.sz-wholesaler.com/p/142/144-2/analog-digital-multimeter-kt7032-12967.html) )
EDIT: another 7032: http://ketaiks.en.ec21.com/print_offer_detail.jsp?offer_id=OF0007756527
Possibly you may find such at ebay too.
Regading those NRG videos you found, have you figured out the exact schematic for them?
Gyula
-
Hi gyulasun,
Thanks for the response. I didn't see it in any of these links but will keep looking. I plan to start with the first video and work my way through. The schematic I'll use is the one NRG posted in his first video at 32 seconds into the video...
best regards,
Luther
-
Hi Luther,
Sorry then, I do not have a video from NRGfromthevacuum, if you could make a picture (PrintScreen) from the video where the multineter is shown in his video then I maybe can help. From your description I thought of the analog scale and a smaller digital window embedded, this why I gave such links.
Gyula
-
Gyula,
The schematic is in the first post on the first page of this thread. Also I just found the meter and they are fairly expensive: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-8-inch-Electronic-Measuring-Instruments-Oscilloscope-usb-Multimeter-60MHz-HDS2062M-N/479736798.html (http://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-8-inch-Electronic-Measuring-Instruments-Oscilloscope-usb-Multimeter-60MHz-HDS2062M-N/479736798.html) Maybe I'll use something else...
Regards,
Luther
-
Oh, that is an oscilloscope too, not only a multimeter, I do not think that such a circuit would need this exact instrument, unless you do not have any scope. Thanks for the info on the schematic.
EDIT: on ebay there are two cheaper versions of this scope family, with 20MHz bandwidth only vs the 60MHZ:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Owon-HDS1021M-Series-HDS-Handheld-Digital-Storage-Oscilloscope-20MHz-100MS-s-/200941389793?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec90a47e1
Gyula