Author Topic: New invention of motion less generation of electric power (Read 350885 times)

winsonali · « **Reply #135 on:** September 09, 2009, 10:06:51 AM »

reply to em :

""You do not have a pure sine wave going out of the dimmer into your device. Your instruments will not be accurate. You really need to look at the waveform with an oscilloscope.''

I value your knowledge and all suggestions, A knowledgeable person just like you, suggested the same point and asked me to put a bulb at input as well if my instruments cannot measure them accurately then the bulb can reflect input on actual so i did the same the results are in front of you.

my output is pure AC with 50 hz output
it operates all kind of loads inductive and resistive
but i am sure that when dc input will be ready its going to be the best result we can get

i love all the forum members and there support

Ali

winsonali · « **Reply #136 on:** September 09, 2009, 11:21:59 AM »

reply to gotoluc

thank you for encouragement

i do need your advise on DC input version
these kind of circuit are usually not available inverters they give output o both wires although they are AC but we need grid type of supply
Ali

MasterPlaster · « **Reply #137 on:** September 09, 2009, 12:28:12 PM »

Quote from: winsonali on September 09, 2009, 11:21:59 AM

i do need your advise on DC input version
these kind of circuit are usually not available inverters they give output o both wires although they are AC but we need grid type of supply

@Ali,
Do you mean the output of the inverter must be Sinusoidal?
Also, how much current is required?

Ergo · « **Reply #138 on:** September 09, 2009, 01:23:54 PM »

Somehow this reminds me of Tommey Reeds overunity claims on his simple booster circuit.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7241.msg178700#msg178700

Ali, please make sure you take measurements in Joules energy (input vs output in Joules).
One Joule is one watt-second. Forget about lamps in series to show any overunity. It will fool you.
This was the mistake of Tommey Reed. He had to face his ignorance the hard way when
he realized he lacked the necessary "know how" in measurement techniques.

Good luck / Ergo

FatBird · « **Reply #139 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:07:34 PM »

Ali,

GREAT UTube Video. Please don't waste time on the Skeptics. Skeptics are NEVER, EVER satisfied.

There are about 100 Buyers ready to buy your GENIE (or the plans) RIGHT NOW FOR CASH, through PayPal.com, or whatever means you prefer.

Why not GRAB SOME MONEY RIGHT NOW to fund your research, and worry about the skeptics Next Year.

.

gotoluc · « **Reply #140 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:40:16 PM »

Hi Ali,

the circuit I shared will give you True AC (not chopped DC like Inverter) however it will be square wave. If for some reason it needs to be sine wave then I think a 1/1 transformer should work.

Before we continue, can you do one more simple test. This test will eliminate the possibility that your device is fooling the utility meter. Simply use one light bulb in Series at 220v AC input (pre dimmer or variac) and use the same wattage bulbs on output. If you can light 2 or more bulbs on the output of the same wattage as the input series bulb and the input series bulb stays dimmer then the output bulbs then your device is an extraordinary find. Please also do a new video of this test as this will put the utility meter fooling discussion to rest.

Thank you for all your sharing and your time

Luc

Ergo · « **Reply #141 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:43:36 PM »

Who the "F" are you, Fatbird? Richard Willis perhaps?

Quote from: FatBird on September 09, 2009, 03:07:34 PM

GREAT UTube Video. Please don't waste time on the Skeptics. Skeptics are NEVER, EVER satisfied.

Anything else than a confirmed working self runner isn't proof on overunity.
Skeptics will always be satisfied when a real working "self running closed loop" system is presented.

Quote from: FatBird on September 09, 2009, 03:07:34 PM

There are about 100 Buyers ready to buy your GENIE (or the plans) RIGHT NOW FOR CASH, through PayPal.com, or whatever means you prefer.

You sound precisely like the typical "Free Energy scammer" yourself......
Why bother selling something that is not confirmed working if the purpose isn't scamming people?

robbie47 · « **Reply #142 on:** September 09, 2009, 03:47:39 PM »

Guys, we really don't need personal attacks here.
This will cause unnecessary discussions.
Please, keep this thread as clean as possible.

Omega_0 · « **Reply #143 on:** September 09, 2009, 04:30:21 PM »

Quote from: winsonali on September 09, 2009, 12:18:35 AM

input to genie is 2.7 amps at 49.8 volts so its 49.8 * 2.7 = 134.46 watts
output from genie 1.33 amps at 338 volts so its 338 * 1.33 = 449.54

This calculation is obviously not correct. You can multiply voltage and current only if they are pure DC. I guess you know that.
For other waveforms, you must take the duty cycle into account and for a sin wave, take only RMS vaules of voltage and current.

As you said, DC measurements will settle this, but if you wish to show the non-DC power measurements, you will need an oscilloscope.

Anyway, much better than the household power meter, thanks a lot

mscoffman · « **Reply #144 on:** September 09, 2009, 05:24:34 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on September 09, 2009, 03:40:16 PM

Hi Ali,

the circuit I shared will give you True AC (not chopped DC like Inverter) however it will be square wave. If for some reason it needs to be sine wave then I think a 1/1 transformer should work.

Before we continue, can you do one more simple test. This test will eliminate the possibility that your device is fooling the utility meter. Simply use one light bulb in Series at 220v AC input (pre dimmer or variac) and use the same wattage bulbs on output. If you can light 2 or more bulbs on the output of the same wattage as the input series bulb and the input series bulb stays dimmer then the output bulbs then your device is an extraordinary find. Please also do a new video of this test as this will put the utility meter fooling discussion to rest.

Thank you for all your sharing and your time

Luc

Good to excellent idea!

A slight improvement in your suggestion though, use LED bulbs rather than
incandescent light bulbs. Led bulbs are much more efficient something
like 85% rather than 5% light vs IR infrared EMF and heat. So LED bulbs
will broadcast more energy more completely away from the unit under test.
Final users of the energy sources will want some of each kind of energy but
currently power companies don't distinguish between these kinds and this
causes a lack of user comprehension.

Incandescent light bulbs are called "negative-resitances" by formal
scientific community because they conduct more electrical current
when they are cold then when they are hot. Please Google something
called the "Wein-Bridge" oscillator circuit, that uses a small incandescent
light bulb as an active circuit element to help understand this.

This may be good for unregulated voltage sources because incandescents
tend to adjust their wattage to a more constant value in deference
to ohms law, but bad if you want to know precisely how much wattage
is being delivered at any time from constant or pulsing sources etc.
For example you could have the same incandescent light output from
a bulb at a lower voltage and it setting at a higher current and a
bulb at a higher voltage but having adjusted itself to a lower current.
The problem is that the adjustment towards a constant wattage
can help stabilise a dynamic system, but is only approximate.

:S:MarkSCoffman

robbie47 · « **Reply #145 on:** September 09, 2009, 05:25:06 PM »

@ Ali,
I noticed that in the first video you posted you are very specific with the plug orientation when you plug in your unit. It looks like it matters what position the neutral connection is in.
I also noticed that you are taking care of this in Video #2.
Can you explain why?

Also, can you confirm that there is no common neutral in your setup?

mscoffman · « **Reply #146 on:** September 09, 2009, 05:52:34 PM »

Quote from: robbie47 on September 09, 2009, 05:25:06 PM

@ Ali,

Also, can you confirm that there is no common neutral in your setup?

I'll let Ali speak for himself, cause I don't know his device, but any
device with an inline transformer could be drawn like this. That
is what I assumed he was showing. A common neutral input/output
circuit would then be optional.

:S:MarkSCoffman

robbie47 · « **Reply #147 on:** September 09, 2009, 06:55:52 PM »

Quote from: mscoffman on September 09, 2009, 05:52:34 PM

anydevice with an inline transformer could be drawn like this.
:S:MarkSCoffman

Mark, according to Ali there are no coils or transformers used in his device.

FatBird · « **Reply #148 on:** September 09, 2009, 07:35:19 PM »

Ergo Said,

Who the "F" are you, Fatbird? Richard Willis perhaps?
You sound precisely like the typical "Free Energy scammer" yourself......

==========================================

Fine, if that's how you appreciate me trying to help us Buy a working unit, I will go away.

Let's see how much good you can do.

.

Ergo · « **Reply #149 on:** September 09, 2009, 10:01:59 PM »

Quote from: FatBird on September 09, 2009, 07:35:19 PM

Fine, if that's how you appreciate me trying to help us Buy a working unit, I will go away.
Let's see how much good you can do.

If you really belive one should sell a "REAL WORKING FREE ENERGY" unit to any bidder
on eBay for some small change, then you are out of your mind.
Once having found the Holy Grail of humanity, he better make sure he doesn't sell it loosely
over an eBay auction. That would render any serious reputation completely worthless.
The only right way is to confirm the OU effect is by several serious test & approval offices.
Then he should write an article on the functionality and have it published in long-established magazines.
This will make the OU device quickly replicated by the scientific community and positively
confirmed (if the device is for real).
Least but not last:
Ali will be written into the history books and on his way to Stockholm to collect his Nobel Prize.

To believe anything else is just childish comprehension...

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: New invention of motion less generation of electric power (Read 350885 times)

winsonali

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

winsonali

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

MasterPlaster

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Ergo

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

FatBird

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

gotoluc

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Ergo

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

robbie47

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Omega_0

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

mscoffman

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

robbie47

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

mscoffman

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

robbie47

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

FatBird

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power

Ergo

Re: New invention of motion less generation of electric power