OverUnity Research

I've followed this topic at EF since the beginning and have been
quite amused by the discussion as it has evolved.  There has been
recent activity in the discussion and the discussion from post
#3916 onward (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-131.html#post311824) just about says it all.

There is a reason the "system" seems to work to the extent
that it has been claimed and it is in reality a simple explanation.

Those who are pushing the "system" and who are dismayed that
so few experimenters are enthralled by it have seemingly become
obsessed with it.

There is no "magic" in the circuit nor is there anything particularly
unusual in the way it is reported to function.  In fact, the "secret"
is in plain view to the promoters but for some reason they seem
unable to "see" it.  Although they do recommend, for any who dare
to give it a try, to use "big batteries."

Has anyone else here been following the discussion?

What are your thoughts?

Yes, I've been following it closely and in the early days commented to Turion that I felt he was being deceived. I suggested that even a very 'bad' battery can lock-in considerable energy and through plate desulfation and release this energy by HV pulsing, making it very difficult to prove that an apparent gain can be clearly demonstrated to originate from a source external to the DUT.

Quote from: Hoppy on 2018.07.21, 08:21:44
I suggested that even a very 'bad' battery can lock-in considerable energy and through plate desulfation and release this energy ...

I have not been following that thread closely and so, excuse me if I am off the rails:

Are you saying that only by using a sulphated battery does the system work?

Quote from: Paul-R on 2018.07.21, 14:49:17
I have not been following that thread closely and so, excuse me if I am off the rails:

Are you saying that only by using a sulphated battery does the system work?

Turion is saying that a 'bad' battery is required and preferably a very bad battery. My understanding of that, is its terminal voltage does not significantly rise over a prolonged period whilst connected in the working system.

Quote from: Hoppy on 2018.07.21, 15:02:26
Turion is saying that a 'bad' battery is required and preferably a very bad battery. My understanding of that, is its terminal voltage does not significantly rise over a prolonged period whilst connected in the working system.

If it is a bad battery,where that battery is badly sulphated,then it's terminal voltage will rise to that of the supply voltage(the sum voltage of the two series connected batteries),due to it's high internal resistance-->A battery that has a low internal resistance is a good battery. So,if battery 3 is bad due to sulphation,then very little(if any) current will flow through the system.
Funny this topic should come up today,as today i actually put the 3 battery system together,and ran some testing myself. Battery 3 is a bad LAB(lead acid battery),and no current would flow through the system for the first 30 minutes,due to the 3rd batteries high internal resistance. Battery 3s terminal voltage was that of the two series connected 12 volt SLAs--also due to the 3rd batteries high internal resistance.

So you see,if battery 3 is bad due to sulphation,then no current will flow,and when the needed current dose flow,then battery 3 is healthy again.
As i recall,the !bad! battery type that was needed, was a battery that would take a charge,but not hold a charge.
This would then allow current to flow through the system.


Brad

Quote from: muDped on 2018.07.21, 05:26:28
I've followed this topic at EF since the beginning and have been
quite amused by the discussion as it has evolved.  There has been
recent activity in the discussion and the discussion from post
#3916 onward (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-131.html#post311824) just about says it all.



Those who are pushing the "system" and who are dismayed that
so few experimenters are enthralled by it have seemingly become
obsessed with it.

There is no "magic" in the circuit nor is there anything particularly
unusual in the way it is reported to function.  In fact, the "secret"
is in plain view to the promoters but for some reason they seem
unable to "see" it.  Although they do recommend, for any who dare
to give it a try, to use "big batteries."

QuoteThere is a reason the "system" seems to work to the extent
that it has been claimed and it is in reality a simple explanation.

Could you explain as to what you think the simple explanation is please muDped

QuoteWhat are your thoughts?

When a PM DC motor is involved,my thoughts are--there is more to this than meets the eye.

QuoteHas anyone else here been following the discussion?

Over the last two weeks,i have been doing some extensive testing and research into this system,but where i use super caps instead of batteries.
This shortens the test run time's,and we need only two caps to get our potential difference.
Also,using capacitors allows us to calculate energies used and dissipated very accurately--unlike batteries,where it is very hard (if not impossible) to calculate energies stored and dissipated.

Below is the data sheet of my last test.
Enjoy.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.21, 16:03:17
If it is a bad battery,where that battery is badly sulphated,then it's terminal voltage will rise to that of the supply voltage(the sum voltage of the two series connected batteries),due to it's high internal resistance-->A battery that has a low internal resistance is a good battery. So,if battery 3 is bad due to sulphation,then very little(if any) current will flow through the system.

Brad

Apologies, I explained it badly. You are correct in that, although the terminal voltage will meet the applied voltage under a badly sulfated condition, my understanding is that Turion ideally requires the battery not to have appreciably increased terminal voltage from its original level when rested off the system. In other words, the battery does not appreciably recover from its sulfated condition. Ref: Ossie Callanan REAC - radiant energy system.

Hoppy,

You are at least 3 or maybe 4 years out of date with the info about the "Dead" battery.  Dave, Matt and myself gave up on that idea a few years ago.  It was just not possible to consistently find the right kind of "Dead" battery.  And if you did it would suddenly repair itself and no longer work like the mysterious battery Dave first discovered.  I had for a short while a battery that did all that Dave said it should.  I ran a load off the dead battery of an inverter powering a 13 watt led bulb for over 8 hours with a motor also running between the positives as Dave originally showed.  At the end of the 8 hour run the two primary batteries were actually showing a higher voltage than when I started.  After that run it never worked like that again.  The "Dead" battery repaired itself.

Dave and Matt have just recently released ALL the information they have about how to build a system that will consistently give very long run times from a couple of batteries.   With the proper generator which they have also detailed it should be possible to get a system that will never need charging from an outside source.  There are already a couple of people on the Energetic Forum that are claiming they have gotten this system to run loads and keep the batteries charged.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Carroll,

I do realise that a lot has changed over the years . I was referring to the original concept that I commented on to Turion way-back.

Even reasonably healthy LA batteries can exhibit rising terminal voltage under load when subjected to pulsed charging currents. Eventually, through conditioning / desulfation the batteries will stabilise to exhibit normal charge / discharge curves. Long term load testing will show if there is any real system gain over and above expected capacity.

QuoteQuestion from Tin Man:
Could you explain as to what you think the simple explanation is please muDped

Aye, I could.  I believe that Hoppy is on to the simple
explanation as well.  Those who understand the Lead
Acid Battery's characteristics and manufacture will
undoubtedly see it as well.

Your work with capacitors in place of batteries is very
revealing in a conclusive sort of way.  Well done!

By the way, the new style of Brushless Motor (https://www.banggood.com/EMAX-CF2812-1534KV-Brushless-Outrunner-Motor-For-RC-Model-p-981249.html?rmmds=search&cur_warehouse=CN) which
has become very popular with RC Modelers and
Quadcopter fliers makes an excellent generator.
The motors are small, three phase wound and
have Neo Magnets which will not fly off at
high revolutions per minute.  They are also very
powerful motors when driven by the needed
circuitry.

As my research is directly related to this topic,i will post my research results here from now on.

First off,i have spent the last two weeks solid carrying out tests with capacitors,transferring energy from one cap to another using all sorts of series transfer methods--E.G resistors,motors,inductors etc.

Im sure you have all heard or believe that when doing a cap to cap transfer via a  series connected resistor of some value,you end up with half the voltage on each cap,and loose half the energy in the transfer.

Well,i would like to tell you that that is not true when using large value capacitors.
From 1F(and even lower than this) and up,the end voltage on both caps after the transfer is higher than half the value of the voltage that was across the source cap before the transfer.
You also do not loose half the energy,and as you increase in capacitance value,the less energy% you loose in the transfer.

I have been seeing large gains above the half voltage,and half energy loss !theory! over the last two weeks of testing,when using caps in the range of 50F.
ION did a sim of a transfer between two 1F cap's,and came out with half the starting voltage across each cap,and half the energy lost during the transfer-- as per accepted results say it should be.

I carried out a real world test,using two 1F caps.
The results are in the video below.
We all know about DA(dielectric absorption)--pay close attention to the meter on the left during the transfer  O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoEXIB2qwWk.

With the caps i have,and the results gained over the last two week's,that continually show a COP1+ result,i decided to spend a bit more money toward this project.
As my limit ATM is two 100F caps (2 banks of two 50F caps hooked in parallel),a few days ago i ordered 6x 500F caps to continue my experiments with.
I am hoping to see larger gains with the larger capacitance values.
This gives me a much larger energy transfer,and over much longer test run times.
This will allow me to log the data at a far greater accuracy--even though results so far are quite accurate.


Brad

The Three Battery System is essentially a regenerative
loop.  The retrograde "Matt Motor" serves a useful
function as a 'pulse generator with kickback' to more
effectively charge the third battery which is also a
part of the 'load' of the system.

Does the 'generator which speeds up under load with
multiple output coils' actually produce more output power
than the calculated power needed to drive it?  That will
be the ultimate answer.  Bi is trying hard to get a meaningful
response from the 'inventor' as the discussion continues but
so far the 'inventor' is squirming and evasive.

The Current Interrupt Charging Algorithm is proven to be the
most effective means of charging the Lead-Acid Battery and
this system does provide pulses with kickback to the battery
being charged with some effect.

Is the system a cost-effective alternative to Solar Panels with
Batteries to store energy?  Will the 'inventor' of the unique
generator which 'speeds up under load' be able to convince
anyone of its ability to provide more output than input?

We shall see...

The now discussed modification of the basic circuit with
added Boost Converters makes the regenerative aspect of
the circuitry more complex.  Bistander and Dragon are
contributing much to the discussion. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-132.html#post311888)

Well i decided to go read the thread from the start,and what did i find lol
Seems way back then Turion took a liking to my L.A.G lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SNN226xCSU&feature=player_embedded

Now there is a generator that dose speed up under load,but not due to the reduction of eddy current drag like all other !speed up under load! generators out there.

I think most over there are lost,and the goal posts keep getting shifted.

First Turion said at the beginning of the thread,it was this !magic! battery you needed to make it work.
Then some time later,you needed the !Matt motor!  C.C
Now it seems that in order to make this setup OU,you need this new found generator

Quote Turion : So it will all depend on the generator whether you see a COP>1 from the system. I KNOW a generator can be built which will output more power than is consumed by the system.

So now we don't need 3 batteries,where one has magical power.
We don't need this !wonder! motor of Matt's either
We no longer need the high performance boost converter
We now need this !super! generator to get OU--and Turion !knows! a generator can be built which will put out more power than it takes to drive it  O0

I think the only one over there that knows what he is talking about,is that bloke Bistander.

Any chance you could get him over here on this thread muDped ?,as i got my ass kicked out of that forum when i exposed UFOpolotics for the fraud that he is,and Aaron the rookie seen his book sales on the subject slowly going down the drain when i bought the truth out lol.

My 500F caps will be here this week some time,so then we can really get the ball rolling  O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.23, 14:15:39
Well i decided to go read the thread from the start,and what did i find lol
Seems way back then Turion took a liking to my L.A.G lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SNN226xCSU&feature=player_embedded

Now there is a generator that dose speed up under load,but not due to the reduction of eddy current drag like all other !speed up under load! generators out there.

I think most over there are lost,and the goal posts keep getting shifted.

snip

Brad

That is interesting Brad, did you ever progress the L.A.G. further?

But you are right on the shifting goal posts over there, Dave will tell you precisely how the only coil that will work is his 12 or 60 strand coil and then Matt will come on and say just a three strand like this will work fine, Then Dave comes on and says the big coils have no output and that is why the big generater is under the bench and not on the bench LOL

But they are arguing black is white over this admitted OBSOLETE system??? What is the point?

Ron

To all interested in cap to cap energy transfers:

It seems that Brad and I have some disagreement on the mechanism of cap to cap energy transfers where he seems to be showing excess energy by using supercaps (Electric Double Layer Caps) or ELDC's as they are also known.

I have run experiments where there is no extra energy using standard high quality film capacitors and these agree completely with simulations of the same.

I maintain that you cannot use the 1/2CV^2 formula when dealing with supercaps as they are hybrid capacitor / batteries and there is hidden energy stored that will give erroneous readings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Here I accidentally posted links to the private thread on the subject so this space is reserved  for the deleted links to the private thread, which I will restore when that thread is made public)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think what would solve the debate is to actually measure the energy used to charge a supercap and compare that to the 1/2CV^2 formula of the resultant stored energy. Any discrepancy would point to the "battery effect" inherent in supercaps and is the reason why 1/2CV^2 does not apply and will give readings of higher voltage left on the supercaps after the transfer, rather than the actual one half voltage expected.

I hope others can chime in with their thoughts on this issue. Meanwhile as time permits I will run experiments using a variety of high quality film type capacitors as well as electrolytics and if I can find them, my supercaps.

I will admit there may be an electret effect that can also account for some very small excess energy to be found in the transfer, but it would indeed be very small compared to the actual transferred energy.

Note  below the actual recommended method of measurement of the capacitance of a supercap. When rated voltage is achieved, there is a 30 minute dead zone during constant current charging before the actual slope measurement zone. It is obvious from the graph that the 1/2CV^2  formula is not accurate for measuring supercaps. It is also obvious that using the normal time constant formula would lead to an inaccurate measurement. Voltage slope measurement during constant current discharge seems to be the preferred method.

Important reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

So we can continue to debate in this thread.

regards
e

Good stuff there ION.

One of my videos demonstrates a 10F supercap actually gaining voltage while it is powering a load (a JT, but still...)

It might be more difficult to show such a phenomenon with larger capacity supercaps. On the other hand a given voltage increase means more energy in the larger capacity.

Lately I've been playing with these 10F aerogel dielectric supercaps. They are lots of fun and have very little leakage.

Quote from: ion on 2018.07.23, 15:26:09
To all interested in cap to cap energy transfers:

It seems that Brad and I have some disagreement on the mechanism of cap to cap energy transfers where he seems to be showing excess energy by using supercaps (Electric Double Layer Caps) or ELDC's as they are also known.

I have run experiments where there is no extra energy using standard high quality film capacitors and these agree completely with simulations of the same.

I maintain that you cannot use the 1/2CV^2 formula when dealing with supercaps as they are hybrid capacitor / batteries and there is hidden energy stored that will give erroneous readings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Here I accidentally posted links to the private thread on the subject so this space is reserved  for the deleted links to the private thread, which I will restore when that thread is made public)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think what would solve the debate is to actually measure the energy used to charge a supercap and compare that to the 1/2CV^2 formula of the resultant stored energy. Any discrepancy would point to the "battery effect" inherent in supercaps and is the reason why 1/2CV^2 does not apply and will give readings of higher voltage left on the supercaps after the transfer, rather than the actual one half voltage expected.

I hope others can chime in with their thoughts on this issue. Meanwhile as time permits I will run experiments using a variety of high quality film type capacitors as well as electrolytics and if I can find them, my supercaps.

I will admit there may be an electret effect that can also account for some very small excess energy to be found in the transfer, but it would indeed be very small compared to the actual transferred energy.

Note  below the actual recommended method of measurement of the capacitance of a supercap. When rated voltage is achieved, there is a 30 minute dead zone during constant current charging before the actual slope measurement zone. It is obvious from the graph that the 1/2CV^2  formula is not accurate for measuring supercaps. It is also obvious that using the normal time constant formula would lead to an inaccurate measurement. Voltage slope measurement during constant current discharge seems to be the preferred method.

Important reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

So we can continue to debate in this thread.

regards
e

Ion

I see you clearly state that there is hidden energy stored in the super caps. This being the case,and using 1/2CV^2 dose not account for this hidden energy,would that not make my calculated test result values low?.

So,if there is energy stored within the caps that i have not accounted for,then the COP+ values that i ended up with are actually lower than the value would be when we account for this hidden energy.

Sounds good to me O0


Brad

 author=ion link=topic=3649.msg68813#msg68813 date=1532359569]

QuoteI think what would solve the debate is to actually measure the energy used to charge a supercap and compare that to the 1/2CV^2 formula of the resultant stored energy. Any discrepancy would point to the "battery effect" inherent in supercaps and is the reason why 1/2CV^2 does not apply and will give readings of higher voltage left on the supercaps after the transfer, rather than the actual one half voltage expected.

That will not result in accurate values of stored energy withing the capacitor.
eason being--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption

Quote: Charging a capacitor (due to a voltage between the capacitor plates) causes an electric field to be applied to the dielectric between the electrodes. This field exerts a torque on the molecular dipoles, causing the directions of the dipole moments to align with the field direction. This change in the molecular dipoles is called oriented polarization and also causes heat to be generated, resulting in dielectric losses.

So how would you know how much of the input energy to charge the cap was dissipated as heat?.

I would also like to bring to your attention the experiments i carried out,and posted in the !other! thread,where i discharged the cap over the 2.2 ohm resistor. In all three of those tests,the dissipated energy by the resistor was near exact to the  calculated stored energy within the cap,using the 1/2CV*2 method.
There was only 1.3J (if i recall correctly)out of the calculated 180 J's not accounted for,which could well have been energy dissipated by the cap and connecting wires them self.That is only .7% off being 100% accurate.
I really do not think it comes much closer than that.

I have no problem with,and do agree that some of the energy is stored within the dielectric material it self.
What i am saying is,that when the cap is discharged slowly,the energy stored within the dielectric material is released.

In my last video,we seen this release right before our eyes.
For those who missed it,watch the meter on the left(the one hooked to the supply cap)at the 1:40 mark.
The DMM decided to time out right in the middle of it,but you can clearly see what is happening-even after i switch the meter back on.
Keep in mind,while this is happening,the meter on the right(the one hooked to the receiving cap) continues to increase in value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoEXIB2qwWk


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.24, 05:27:34
Ion

I see you clearly state that there is hidden energy stored in the super caps. This being the case,and using 1/2CV^2 dose not account for this hidden energy,would that not make my calculated test result values low?.

So,if there is energy stored within the caps that i have not accounted for,then the COP+ values that i ended up with are actually lower than the value would be when we account for this hidden energy.

Sounds good to me O0


Brad

The hidden energy causes the supercap to supercap transfer voltage to be higher than the expected one-half of the original voltage. This is not seen in real world good quality film capacitor tests where the transfer produces a very close to one-half.

Then when you use the 1/2CV^2 formula to arrive at resultant energy you find you have a bit more than the start energy calculated of the first capacitor using the same formula.

It is my belief that if the actual energy was tallied to charge the first supercap, it would be a bit more than the calculated value shows and why 1/2CV^2 is not an accurate method of calculating the energy of a hybrid cap/battery.

To answer your other post:

The dissipation factor and heating effect is miniscule for DC and becomes large at AC frequencies, which is why supercaps capacitance must be rated at a given frequency. At any rate the temperature rise can be measured and accounted for, which will be tiny for DC

You know that terminal voltage alone cannot tell the actual energy of a battery, nor can it tell the actual energy of a supercap.

So the supercap is "a little bit pregnant" with battery effect. Therefore your COP values are actually a little higher than expected, which would be 1.0 if measured correctly.

As an example I took a fully charged NiMH battery with terminal voltage of 1.396 volts and dumped it into a fully discharged identical cell, and the terminal voltage on both was 1.394 after a couple of hours. This is the extreme case where you have 100% battery effect, the transfer voltage is well above  one-half of the original terminal voltage, in fact it is close to the starting voltage. There are percentages of battery effect and normal ideal capacitor effect in supercaps.

Depending on the mix of the two will be the degree the voltage rises above the "one-half value" in both supercaps after the transfer.

regards
e

p.s. I agree that there may be some other strange gains that occur in supercap to supercap transfers, but first we must weed out the obvious effects to get to the stranger data reliably. We need to exhaust the "knowns" properly then we can diligently proceed to the  "unknowns".

Here is an interesting paper on "Charge redistribuition and restoring voltage of supercapacitors", see this link:

https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/11821/1/Kuparowitz.pdf   

It says in the Abstract part, last sentence:
"Supercapacitor capacitance value depends on the voltage of its terminals; with increasing voltage total capacitance increases." 

This may or may not be in connection with the COP findings, I am not sure.

Gyula 

Quote from: gyula on 2018.07.24, 22:51:18
Here is an interesting paper on "Charge redistribuition and restoring voltage of supercapacitors", see this link:

https://dspace5.zcu.cz/bitstream/11025/11821/1/Kuparowitz.pdf   

It says in the Abstract part, last sentence:
"Supercapacitor capacitance value depends on the voltage of its terminals; with increasing voltage total capacitance increases." 

This may or may not be in connection with the COP findings, I am not sure.

Gyula

hi Gyula

That is a good paper, has everything to do with the COP errors, and the non-linear capacitance directly explains why a higher voltage (than half) is obtained during cap to cap transfer.

It further goes on to state that there are two mechanisms of charge transfer that creates the non-linear capacitance, and why the 1/2CV^2 formula cannot be used, then goes on to offer the actual formula required.

Thanks for finding that paper, it is a good read.

regards
e

Yes, excellent find Gyula.

Well, I wrote I was not sure how the reported capacitance change influence the COP findings because I think it should be tested in a system where the two (or 3) supercaps are switched in position, i.e. doing tests in a dynamic system.  We need not rest the case yet...  8)

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.07.25, 08:10:11
Well, I wrote I was not sure how the reported capacitance change influence the COP findings because I think it should be tested in a system where the two (or 3) supercaps are switched in position, i.e. doing tests in a dynamic system.  We need not rest the case yet...  8)

Gyula

Hi Gyula

Thanks for all the info you have posted,both here and on the other thread  O0

QuoteWe need not rest the case yet...

Darn straight there  O0
Nothing like bench testing to get accurate results.

I noticed the paper said nothing about the charge stored within the dielectric material,which i thought this was all about--the hidden energy.

Energy stored on the plates,and within the electrolyte is not hidden energy. It is just two energy storage mediums within the cap.

When a capacitor is discharged quickly,you will get the self charging effect. That is because the plates can discharge fast,but the electrolyte discharges a little slower.

However,if a supercap is discharge at a slower rate,then it will discharge completely,and there will be no self recharging effect.


Brad

OK,the goodies have started turning up from Ebay  O0

The 500F supercaps and 100 watt precision resistors turned up today(a couple of days earlier than expected  O0)

The caps are heavier than i thought they would be,and boy dose it take some time to charge them up.
Over 20 minutes with the current limited to 500mA to get them to 2.7v

The resistors i !thought! i ordered were 50 watt rated,but 100 watt rated resistors turned up  :)

So lets get this show on the road,and work out how to calculate the stored energy within each cap.   O0


Brad

 author=ion link=topic=3649.msg68820#msg68820 date=1532449346]



OK,so lets get down to the nitty gritty here.

QuoteThe hidden energy causes the supercap to supercap transfer voltage to be higher than the expected one-half of the original voltage.

How can it do this?
If the energy is hidden,then the voltage measured across the capacitor should represent a lower value of stored energy--if the hidden energy cannot be seen or accounted for.

QuoteThis is not seen in real world good quality film capacitor tests where the transfer produces a very close to one-half.

We are not talking about film capacitors here--never have been.I have been dealing with supercaps only.
The makeup of the two are completely different. To compare a film capacitor to that of a super capacitor,is like comparing a lead acid battery to a lithium ion battery--no pun intended  :D.

QuoteIt is my belief that if the actual energy was tallied to charge the first supercap, it would be a bit more than the calculated value shows and why 1/2CV^2 is not an accurate method of calculating the energy of a hybrid cap/battery.

You simply cannot calculate the capacity of a supercap by how much energy went into charging it,due to heat loss.
And i see your reply to this below--

QuoteThe dissipation factor and heating effect is miniscule for DC and becomes large at AC frequencies, which is why supercaps capacitance must be rated at a given frequency. At any rate the temperature rise can be measured and accounted for, which will be tiny for DC

Im afraid this is not correct,and a good chunk of the charging energy is lost to heat.
In the below video,i limited the charging current to 500mA,and it took over 20 minutes at that current to get the cap to 2.3 volts. The current then of course started to drop off as we got closer to the input voltage value of 2.7v
Even at this low current value,i could feel the cap was warm,and the others were at room temperature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z_WLRtIBqE

So,the only way to calculate the energy stored within a supercap,is by means of discharging it across a pure resistor over time--which i have done 3 times now,to the point where there is less than 10mV regaind after the circuit is disconnected. Those results were within 99.3% of the calculated capacitance value.

QuoteThen when you use the 1/2CV^2 formula to arrive at resultant energy you find you have a bit more than the start energy calculated of the first capacitor using the same formula.

I would think that the manufactures would know the value of there capacitors,through years of research,and take all this into account.
Of course the cheaper ones will some where in the ball park of there claimed value.

QuoteYou know that terminal voltage alone cannot tell the actual energy of a battery, nor can it tell the actual energy of a supercap.

I do not agree with that.
A batteries makeup is different to that of a supercap.
A battery can have a surface charge,and a supercap cannot.
You can have a battery that has 1.5v across it,and as soon as you place a load across it,the voltage will drop maybe .5v in an instant--you cannot get that with supercaps.

QuoteSo the supercap is "a little bit pregnant" with battery effect.

Very little.

QuoteTherefore your COP values are actually a little higher than expected, which would be 1.0 if measured correctly.

If measured correctly  :o
How much more accurate can you get than the way i have done it.
We calculated the actual capacitance of each cap down to the third decimal point,by way of discharging over a resistance to the first time constant ,down to a single second. I then discharged the total stored energy over the same 2.2 ohm resistor,and calculated the energy dissipated from the resistor,which was within .7% of the first calculation,and that .7% very well could have been dissipated as heat from the cap it self.

QuoteAs an example I took a fully charged NiMH battery with terminal voltage of 1.396 volts and dumped it into a fully discharged identical cell, and the terminal voltage on both was 1.394 after a couple of hours. This is the extreme case where you have 100% battery effect, the transfer voltage is well above  one-half of the original terminal voltage, in fact it is close to the starting voltage. There are percentages of battery effect and normal ideal capacitor effect in supercaps.

That test actually proves how little battery effect supercaps have,as you would never be able to get those results with supercaps.If a rapid cap to cap transfer is done,where the resistive path between the two caps is very low,then the circuit is disconnected,you would see the supply caps voltage go up,and the receiving caps voltage go down. If the transfer is done slowly,say through a 10 ohm resistor,then when the transfer is complete,and the circuit is disconnected,you would not see hardly any voltage rise or fall on either cap.

QuoteDepending on the mix of the two will be the degree the voltage rises above the "one-half value" in both supercaps after the transfer.

And if the voltage remains stable,with the circuit still connected after the transfer,then what?.

There is also this that requires an answer.

In my tests,i use the same caps in the same location,where the supply cap is always charged to 2.7v exactly,and the receiving cap is always discharged until it's voltage reads no more than 10mV after 5 minutes sitting.
The first test is a transfer using the 2.2 ohm resistor in series,and the caps settle to 1.413v each.
The second test is using the small DC PM motor which has a small propellor as a load.
At the end of the transfer each cap has a voltage of 1.502v
The odd thing is,the motor and load(propellor) dissipated more energy than the 2.2 ohm resistor did in the same test--how do we explain this?.

Quotep.s. I agree that there may be some other strange gains that occur in supercap to supercap transfers, but first we must weed out the obvious effects to get to the stranger data reliably. We need to exhaust the "knowns" properly then we can diligently proceed to the  "unknowns".

This is going to take a while i feel,as it seems that the knowns are not so well known at this point in time.


Brad

QuoteOK,so lets get down to the nitty gritty here.

Quote

   

QuoteThe hidden energy causes the supercap to supercap transfer voltage to be higher than the expected one-half of the original voltage.

How can it do this?
If the energy is hidden,then the voltage measured across the capacitor should represent a lower value of stored energy--if the hidden energy cannot be seen or accounted for.

My Reply: The energy is hidden from the formula 1/2CV^2. It is measured and accounted for by the rise greater than on-half of the voltage after a cap to cap transfer.

Quote

   

QuoteThis is not seen in real world good quality film capacitor tests where the transfer produces a very close to one-half.

We are not talking about film capacitors here--never have been.I have been dealing with supercaps only.
The makeup of the two are completely different. To compare a film capacitor to that of a super capacitor,is like comparing a lead acid battery to a lithium ion battery--no pun intended  :D.

My reply: I use quality film capacitors as my gold standard on the bench for three reasons: the capacitance vs voltage is linear (it is non-linear for a supercap) 2) film capacitors have miniscule battery effect or DA (compared to supercaps). They conform very closely to the 1/2CV^2 formula (supercaps cannot use this formula)

Quote

   

QuoteIt is my belief that if the actual energy was tallied to charge the first supercap, it would be a bit more than the calculated value shows and why 1/2CV^2 is not an accurate method of calculating the energy of a hybrid cap/battery.

You simply cannot calculate the capacity of a supercap by how much energy went into charging it,due to heat loss.
And i see your reply to this below--

Quote

   

QuoteThe dissipation factor and heating effect is miniscule for DC and becomes large at AC frequencies, which is why supercaps capacitance must be rated at a given frequency. At any rate the temperature rise can be measured and accounted for, which will be tiny for DC

Im afraid this is not correct,and a good chunk of the charging energy is lost to heat.
In the below video,i limited the charging current to 500mA,and it took over 20 minutes at that current to get the cap to 2.3 volts. The current then of course started to drop off as we got closer to the input voltage value of 2.7v
Even at this low current value,i could feel the cap was warm,and the others were at room temperature.

My reply: You say good chunk but have you actually measured and quantified in joules the amount of heat loss compared to energy stored to be able to make that statement? In your video you do not have Joule values for heat loss compared to energy input, rather just an arbitrary temperature measurement. Log the actual energy input from the power supply by integrating current and voltage over time then compute energy stored using the correct formula, the difference will be the heat loss (if you have no other method of of quantifying heat loss).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z_WLRtIBqE

So,the only way to calculate the energy stored within a supercap,is by means of discharging it across a pure resistor over time--which i have done 3 times now,to the point where there is less than 10mV regaind after the circuit is disconnected. Those results were within 99.3% of the calculated capacitance value.

My reply: That is not the only way, you could also use constant current discharge method. Also you may get errors in using this method due to the non-linear capacitance effect of supercaps.

Quote

   

QuoteThen when you use the 1/2CV^2 formula to arrive at resultant energy you find you have a bit more than the start energy calculated of the first capacitor using the same formula.

I would think that the manufactures would know the value of there capacitors,through years of research,and take all this into account.
Of course the cheaper ones will some where in the ball park of there claimed value.

My reply: They do, but the capacitance is at it's rated voltage and changes for lower voltages, which introduces conceptual and measurement errors if you are still thinking that it is a linear capacitor

Quote

 

QuoteYou know that terminal voltage alone cannot tell the actual energy of a battery, nor can it tell the actual energy of a supercap.

I do not agree with that.
A batteries makeup is different to that of a supercap. My reply: I'm merely saying a supercap has some battery like effects
A battery can have a surface charge,and a supercap cannot.
You can have a battery that has 1.5v across it,and as soon as you place a load across it,the voltage will drop maybe .5v in an instant--you cannot get that with supercaps. My reply: exactly what were you comparing to what in this statement
Quote

   

QuoteSo the supercap is "a little bit pregnant" with battery effect.

Very little. My reply: you only need a little to skew readings

Quote

   

QuoteTherefore your COP values are actually a little higher than expected, which would be 1.0 if measured correctly.

If measured correctly  :o
How much more accurate can you get than the way i have done it.
We calculated the actual capacitance of each cap down to the third decimal point,by way of discharging over a resistance to the first time constant ,down to a single second. I then discharged the total stored energy over the same 2.2 ohm resistor,and calculated the energy dissipated from the resistor,which was within .7% of the first calculation,and that .7% very well could have been dissipated as heat from the cap it self.

My reply: by using the correct formula

Quote

   

QuoteAs an example I took a fully charged NiMH battery with terminal voltage of 1.396 volts and dumped it into a fully discharged identical cell, and the terminal voltage on both was 1.394 after a couple of hours. This is the extreme case where you have 100% battery effect, the transfer voltage is well above  one-half of the original terminal voltage, in fact it is close to the starting voltage. There are percentages of battery effect and normal ideal capacitor effect in supercaps.

That test actually proves how little battery effect supercaps have,as you would never be able to get those results with supercaps.If a rapid cap to cap transfer is done,where the resistive path between the two caps is very low,then the circuit is disconnected,you would see the supply caps voltage go up,and the receiving caps voltage go down. If the transfer is done slowly,say through a 10 ohm resistor,then when the transfer is complete,and the circuit is disconnected,you would not see hardly any voltage rise or fall on either cap.

My reply: the point was to show the extreme case , and interpolate that supercaps have some of this effect resulting in greater than one half voltage after transfer.

Quote

   

QuoteDepending on the mix of the two will be the degree the voltage rises above the "one-half value" in both supercaps after the transfer.

And if the voltage remains stable,with the circuit still connected after the transfer,then what?.

My reply: by circuit, do you mean the two capacitors are still connected together? the voltage should remain stable if it is a quality storage device, with a very slow downward drift due to internal leakage,

There is also this that requires an answer.

In my tests,i use the same caps in the same location,where the supply cap is always charged to 2.7v exactly,and the receiving cap is always discharged until it's voltage reads no more than 10mV after 5 minutes sitting.
The first test is a transfer using the 2.2 ohm resistor in series,and the caps settle to 1.413v each.
The second test is using the small DC PM motor which has a small propellor as a load.
At the end of the transfer each cap has a voltage of 1.502v
The odd thing is,the motor and load(propellor) dissipated more energy than the 2.2 ohm resistor did in the same test--how do we explain this?.

My reply: A return question that needs to be answered directly: Yes let's get "Down to the nitty gritty" Are you alluding to a source of overunity in cap to cap transfers? If so, where do you think the excess energy is coming from? If the answer is yes, but you don't know where the excess energy is coming from, why not loop the  system to self run, it would not be that difficult to do so. Measurements are one step towards a proof, a self runner with just a small overage would be ultimate proof. I can help with the design of such a circuit for proof of concept.[[/b]

Quote

   

Quotep.s. I agree that there may be some other strange gains that occur in supercap to supercap transfers, but first we must weed out the obvious effects to get to the stranger data reliably. We need to exhaust the "knowns" properly then we can diligently proceed to the  "unknowns".

This is going to take a while i feel,as it seems that the knowns are not so well known at this point in time.

My reply: Yes we all have much to learn.


Brad

Brad: I hope we can continue the gentlemanly exchange of ideas and discourse

Edit.  Incorrect calculations, see later post #30

Don't know if this helps but I have taken Brad's work where he discharged his supercap into a 2.2 ohm load and recorded the voltage decay, see his image C1.jpg.   He did this to obtain a capacitance value from the discharge to one time constant which is when the voltage reaches 36.79% of the start value.  I have recorded his measurements and also calculated the discharge curve for for that fixed value of capacitance 52.27F, see comparison in the next image.  I then used the formula for capacitance v. voltage derived in that Kuparowitz paper that Gyula posted and played with the C_H0 and C_H1 values to get the best fit to the measured voltages, see the third image.  Interestingly those C_H0 and C_H1 values of 38.5 and 9 are close to what you would expect from Kuparowitz's values for his 10F supercaps adjusted for Brad's notional 55F capacitance.  Next I compared the energy v. voltage for the fixed 52.27F to that of the variable C=38.5+9*V Farad capacitor using Kuparowitz's energy formula, see final image.  I think this could explain where the apparent excess energy comes from since in going from 2.72 volts down to Brads final voltages that are around 1.45 volts the variable capacitance model of the supercap shows a greater energy loss than does the assumed fixed value.
Smudge

author=ion link=topic=3649.msg68832#msg68832 date=1532531121]

   

QuoteThe energy is hidden from the formula 1/2CV^2. It is measured and accounted for by the rise greater than on-half of the voltage after a cap to cap transfer.

I do not believe there is any hidden energy.
The energy is stored in the two mediums of the cap--the plates,and the electrolyte.
When discharged slowly,both mediums dissipate there energy during the transfer process at an even rate.

Quoteyou only need a little to skew readings

I do not think 11+% is very little

QuoteThat is not the only way, you could also use constant current discharge method. Also you may get errors in using this method due to the non-linear capacitance effect of supercaps

OK,well what we need is an accurate way of calculating the energy stored within each cap,otherwise we will get no where. I will leave this accurate measuring method up to you to come up with.

Quoteby using the correct formula

You supply the correct formula,and i will use it. O0

Quotethe point was to show the extreme case , and interpolate that supercaps have some of this effect resulting in greater than one half voltage after transfer.

Can you place a resistor of some value,say 2.2 ohms,or a small motor in series,and run the battery transfer test again,and post your findings.  O0

QuoteAre you alluding to a source of overunity in cap to cap transfers? If so, where do you think the excess energy is coming from?

The PMs in the DC motor.

Quotewhy not loop the  system to self run, it would not be that difficult to do so.

That is the plan,but the energy gain would first have to be higher than the energy loss during the cap charging process.

QuoteI can help with the design of such a circuit for proof of concept.

That would be great,as we could then see how far behind we are in what we need in way of energy gain.

QuoteI hope we can continue the gentlemanly exchange of ideas and discourse

Of course we can--always. O0


Brad

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.07.25, 15:08:12
Don't know if this helps but I have taken Brad's work where he discharged his supercap into a 2.2 ohm load and recorded the voltage decay, see his image C1.jpg.   He did this to obtain a capacitance value from the discharge to one time constant which is when the voltage reaches 36.79% of the start value.  I have recorded his measurements and also calculated the discharge curve for for that fixed value of capacitance 52.27F, see comparison in the next image.  I then used the formula for capacitance v. voltage derived in that Kuparowitz paper that Gyula posted and played with the C_H0 and C_H1 values to get the best fit to the measured voltages, see the third image.  Interestingly those C_H0 and C_H1 values of 38.5 and 9 are close to what you would expect from Kuparowitz's values for his 10F supercaps adjusted for Brad's notional 55F capacitance.  Next I compared the energy v. voltage for the fixed 52.27F to that of the variable C=38.5+9*V Farad capacitor using Kuparowitz's energy formula, see final image.  I think this could explain where the apparent excess energy comes from since in going from 2.72 volts down to Brads final voltages that are around 1.45 volts the variable capacitance model of the supercap shows a greater energy loss than does the assumed fixed value.
Smudge

I can't get my head round the fact that both the fixed value cap and the supercap variable capacity model fit the same discharge curve.  That tells me the energy lost in the 2.2 ohm resistor is the same in both cases, and that doesn't fit with Kuparowitz's energy formula.  Kuparowitz could be wrong and Brad's work may well be OK, needs more looking at.
Smudge

Right, listen up!  I have looked back at what I did in my previous post #27 and found that I used the measured voltages to determine the variable supercap values and that led to a false impression of how it fitted so well to those measured values.  I have redone it using calculated values of voltage for the supercap to give me the capacitance values so now I can get a true comparison between measurement and theory.  My best fit for a fixed capacitance value is 52.8 F and that gives me an average error over the 12 values taken from Brad's scope shot of 0.0217 V.  My best fit for a supercap is 45+4.1*V Farads and that gives an average error of 0.00758 V so the supercap formula does fit better.  However the measurements are close to both.  I then calculated the energy dissipated in the 2.2 ohm resistor for (a) the measured voltages, (b) the calculated voltage assuming a fixed 52.8F capacitor and (c) the calculated voltage assuming the 45+4.1*V Farad supercap.  The results were (a) using measured voltages 195.6 Joules, (b) using fixed capacitor 192.78 Joules and (c) using supercap 194.90 Joules.  Just a few Joules difference but not enough to account for Brad's apparent OU.  Add in the fact that Brad only finds this OU when he is using a motor, in his resistive cap to cap measurements all the energy is accounted for except for about 1.2 Joules, and it looks like Brad is really on to something.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.07.26, 14:05:47
Right, listen up!  I have looked back at what I did in my previous post #27 and found that I used the measured voltages to determine the variable supercap values and that led to a false impression of how it fitted so well to those measured values.  I have redone it using calculated values of voltage for the supercap to give me the capacitance values so now I can get a true comparison between measurement and theory.  My best fit for a fixed capacitance value is 52.8 F and that gives me an average error over the 12 values taken from Brad's scope shot of 0.0217 V.  My best fit for a supercap is 45+4.1*V Farads and that gives an average error of 0.00758 V so the supercap formula does fit better.  However the measurements are close to both.  I then calculated the energy dissipated in the 2.2 ohm resistor for (a) the measured voltages, (b) the calculated voltage assuming a fixed 52.8F capacitor and (c) the calculated voltage assuming the 45+4.1*V Farad supercap.  The results were (a) using measured voltages 195.6 Joules, (b) using fixed capacitor 192.78 Joules and (c) using supercap 194.90 Joules.  Just a few Joules difference but not enough to account for Brad's apparent OU.  Add in the fact that Brad only finds this OU when he is using a motor, in his resistive cap to cap measurements all the energy is accounted for except for about 1.2 Joules, and it looks like Brad is really on to something.
Smudge

Thanks Smudge.

My manual calculations,using a volt meter across the cap,and a stop watch,gave me a value of 52.27F for that cap used in the test. Charged to 2.7v,we have 190.524 joules of stored energy--very close to your calculated 192.78 joules.
We are within 1% of our two calculated values for capacity  O0

As i have been trying to say,although there may be this !battery! effect,it makes no difference to the calculations when the caps are discharged slowly.

If we discharge a supercap fast,as in a short(very low resistive path)across the cap,when we disconnect that short we will see the voltage across the cap begin to rise again.
If that resistive path is of a higher resistance,the cap will discharge completely,and when the circuit is disconnected,the voltage across the cap will hardly rise at all.

I now have my 500F supercaps,and 6x 100 watt precision resistors--2x 1ohm,2x 2ohms,2x 10ohms.

Brad

Since supercaps have different capacitance vs applied voltage, an alternative to the RC time constant method would be to measure the actual impedance of the supercap at various voltages from zero up to it's rated voltage.

This could be done using a small AC frequency superimposed on a DC bias and a CSR or other method of measuring the AC current across the resistor vs across the supercap in the loop.

Then the formula Xc= 1 over 2 pi f C could allow a calculation of the capacitance value at each voltage plot point.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/filter/filter_1.html

A few different frequencies could also be used to note how the capacitance measurement is affected by applied frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the question I asked of where the extra energy of the supercaps is coming from,

Brad said:

QuoteThe PMs in the DC motor.

This needs to be seriously discussed, as it seems there are quite a few questions that arise.

A strange response to a valid request. (http://www.energeticforum.com/311977-post4012.html)

Is the 'inventor' admitting that he has no idea
how to go about providing 'proof?'

Credibility is at serious risk.  A common attitude,
however, adopted by many in the Free Energy
Community.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.07.26, 18:04:26
A strange response to a valid request. (http://www.energeticforum.com/311977-post4012.html)

Is the 'inventor' admitting that he has no idea
how to go about providing 'proof?'

Credibility is at serious risk.  A common attitude,
however, adopted by many in the Free Energy
Community.

Clicked on the video link,and it says--this video dose not exist  C.C

And how exactly dose Turion have access to the private group ?--Chet?.


Brad

Another possible method to profile the capacitance of a supercap would be to use a constant current source to charge or discharge the cap under test.  An example of a sim that has profiled the non-linear capacitance of a mosfet is shown below.  This could be done on the bench however it would require a scope with math equation capability to really get an accurate plot.  I presently do not have any SC's in my possession but I have ordered some for testing in this manner.

Although confusing because of labeling, the plot cursors indicate the drain capacitance of the IRF2204 mosfet is 3.41nf when the drain voltage is 3.108v with a constant current of 2ma.  The red trace shows the non-linear capacitance decreasing with increasing drain voltage in this case as is specified and typical for this device.

The potential energy in joules can also be plotted from this data but one must be careful how you interpret the available energy at any given level with this amount of non-linearity but I'm going to assume that an SC does not reach this magnitude of capacitance change.

Regards,
Pm

QuoteFrom Tin Man:
Clicked on the video link,and it says--this video dose not exist    C.C

The motor test video link has been changed.

New Link (https://youtu.be/hYcghCtlG-4)

Lucs Vid was done last year some time for the thread at energetic as part of an attempt to understand the technology
the Motor came from Carroll for testing [a Matt motor??]
the video link is in a post at energetic forum [David copy pasted it wrong and didn't check the link he actually posted ,this has happened to me too ....Once .

it is not some secret access to a secret group

it was done at energetic and taken from the thread there .

things did not go well during that attempt to replicate the tech ,and the mentioned Vid highlights a very big heat problem with the motor [energy loss].

but some gain of some sort was mentioned By Luc in the Video ,however Luc felt the heat a big problem for any possible true gain mechanism to manifest ?

perhaps the Gain he noted in the Vid was more for demonstration [By Matt] of where or how to get on the right track towards harvesting the energy needed to produce a true gain in this system.

Honestly Luc was completely perplexed at how such a hot running motor could possibly produce gain in any system ?

I called Luc for the right link and sent it to David yesterday after I spoke with him.
during that conversation with David I explained the problem copy pasting You tube links from Aaron's forum



on another Note

David says his Life is about to change in a very big way
Matt's too

and he says this stuff works .

and they are doing a Vid to show it [in the works]

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.27, 09:44:35
Lucs Vid was done last year some time for the thread at energetic as part of an attempt to understand the technology
the Motor came from Carroll for testing [a Matt motor??]
the video link is in a post at energetic forum [David copy pasted it wrong and didn't check the link he actually posted ,this has happened to me too ....Once .

it is not some secret access to a secret group

it was done at energetic and taken from the thread there .

things did not go well during that attempt to replicate the tech ,and the mentioned Vid highlights a very big heat problem with the motor [energy loss].

but some gain of some sort was mentioned By Luc in the Video ,however Luc felt the heat a big problem for any possible true gain mechanism to manifest ?

perhaps the Gain he noted in the Vid was more for demonstration [By Matt] of where or how to get on the right track towards harvesting the energy needed to produce a true gain in this system.

Honestly Luc was completely perplexed at how such a hot running motor could possibly produce gain in any system ?

I called Luc for the right link and sent it to David yesterday after I spoke with him.
during that conversation with David I explained the problem copy pasting You tube links from Aaron's forum



on another Note

David says his Life is about to change in a very big way
Matt's too

and he says this stuff works .

and they are doing a Vid to show it [in the works]

I was referring to this statement by Turion

Quote" This system has been proved plenty of times by plenty of people. It just hasn't been proved to YOU. It is all about YOU.
Gotuluc, DUBUNKING our setup, didn't post on this forum. Instead, he posted it on a private forum that we happened to have access to, so here it is.

So,We know what !private! forum he is referring to,as that is where Luc carried out his work.

My question is-->how do they have access to that part of the forum?
Who in our group is lending out there private access ?
Is there no place safe anymore??????????????????????????????????????

Hmm
As you are well aware
here we do nothing but open source work

For several years off and on attempts heave been made to understand Davids claim

which I happen to believe [his original experience of the battery running loads for weeks...big loads]

Davids friend and associate Carroll also experienced anomalous battery behavior but for a shorter time period.

anyhoo a few years back I approached David about getting a replication done
I explained at the time there was a group founded By Dr.Jones that had interested members.
freedom Energy group
at the time I started talkin to Dave My eyes started going Bad from the Lens rejections

so it was almost impossible to read and write [still very hard]
as the discussion with Dave started here about his work ,You [Brad] did a replication
at Stefan's which did not work.
So I asked David for advice on how to proceed and get good results ,he had mentioned a pump he used as a load and a motor
I asked if he would ship them to Luc for testing as part of a replication
I also asked him about batteries and Dr.Jones  and Luc supplied funds and ordered batteries [at the time recommended By Dave... small lawnmower batteries.

as it turned out Carroll had a Matt motor and shipped it to Luc


this attempt at replication never got past initial testing and was all done at Energetic forum ,during this time I was almost blind and basically in agony from my Eye having split or torn on the back side.

so I was unable to sort all of this or be much help
it all went sideways.

David misunderstood Why Luc's Vid was marked unlisted,it was not for privacy but more for lack of confusion from persons who subscribe to Luc's youtube channel and would not understand what they are looking at [I explained this to him yesterday on the phone ]
also Luc was not looking to make trouble just to do his best at an honest replication
and making the vids only available to participating viewers at the energetic thread
was part of this attempt to be fair and not post results on his public youtube channel until it was successful.

so this is what David is referring to..

mostly confusion but all true,

David was told he would be involved in "His" open source replication attempt so as to insure proper results
as it turned out it was all done at energetic forum.

no sneaky stuff....

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.27, 12:53:34
Hmm
As you are well aware
here we do nothing but open source work

For several years off and on attempts heave been made to understand Davids claim

which I happen to believe [his original experience of the battery running loads for weeks...big loads]

Davids friend and associate Carroll also experienced anomalous battery behavior but for a shorter time period.

anyhoo a few years back I approached David about getting a replication done
I explained at the time there was a group founded By Dr.Jones that had interested members.
freedom Energy group
at the time I started talkin to Dave My eyes started going Bad from the Lens rejections

so it was almost impossible to read and write [still very hard]
as the discussion with Dave started here about his work ,You [Brad] did a replication
at Stefan's which did not work.
So I asked David for advice on how to proceed and get good results ,he had mentioned a pump he used as a load and a motor
I asked if he would ship them to Luc for testing as part of a replication
I also asked him about batteries and Dr.Jones  and Luc supplied funds and ordered batteries [at the time recommended By Dave... small lawnmower batteries.

as it turned out Carroll had a Matt motor and shipped it to Luc


this attempt at replication never got past initial testing and was all done at Energetic forum ,during this time I was almost blind and basically in agony from my Eye having split or torn on the back side.

so I was unable to sort all of this or be much help
it all went sideways.

David misunderstood Why Luc's Vid was marked unlisted,it was not for privacy but more for lack of confusion from persons who subscribe to Luc's youtube channel and would not understand what they are looking at [I explained this to him yesterday on the phone ]
also Luc was not looking to make trouble just to do his best at an honest replication
and making the vids only available to participating viewers at the energetic thread
was part of this attempt to be fair and not post results on his public youtube channel until it was successful.

so this is what David is referring to..

mostly confusion but all true.

no sneaky stuff....

Quote: didn't post on this forum. Instead, he posted it on a private forum that we happened to have access to, so here it is.

To  me,that says it all.
Clearly not the energetic forum Chet.

Anyway,not that it maters now,as we are here-open source,but good to know for future projects.
one way or another--Aaron the rookie will not be getting his hands on what i have sitting on my bench

ION

No need to work out how to calculate the energy stored within the caps--i have it well and truly sorted  O0


Brad

yes much confusion there


David was told from day one he would be involved in "His" open source replication attempt so as to insure proper results and Carroll would assist wherever he could [although at the time Carroll was dealing with his Dad's passing and all the problems that can go along with that]
as it turned out it was all done at energetic forum.

and honestly at the time Luc made the Vid it was more a "whats going on here ??"
how could this be a gain mechanism with all this Heat" ??

he did not feel it was possible to get a gain from the roasting hot motor ??
more a shop talk scenario than subterfuge...

and as I said before ,I went outa the loop for quite some time right in the middle of this.

your concerns about the crew at the other forum harvesting "funding data" for book sales
or whatever
seems even more relevant with recent events surrounding Matt and Dave's work over there.
which Matt has recently made reference to at that forum [his own concerns and opinions ].

Luc's test of the retrograde 'Matt Motor" (https://youtu.be/hYcghCtlG-4) reveals that a
DC PM Motor is also a 'generator.'  This is, of course,
not surprising and is well known. The positioning of the
brushes on the commutator do determine how much of
the 'Back EMF' appears across the motor terminals (and
Power Supply terminals) following drive current interruption
and the 'kickback pulse.'  Luc's scope display shows the
entire sequence of events for each commutation.

The retrograde motor is in effect functioning as a Dynamotor.

Does it produce more energy out than it consumes?

Bistander answers the question. (http://www.energeticforum.com/311993-post4022.html)

Additionally, the 'inventor' reveals the real 'secret' of
the system: (http://www.energeticforum.com/311991-post4021.html)

QuoteQuote from the Inventor:
The line between success and failure on this system is very thin.
The right motor, a BIG deep cycle battery, large wires and the
right generator.

A 'Big' Deep Cycle Lead-Acid Battery is really the reason there
appears to be 'Free Energy' in the circuit.  Lead-Acid batteries
have an almost 'magical' ability to rebound from deep discharge.
Battery Voltage alone cannot be relied upon as a reliable indicator
of State of Charge for the Lead-Acid Battery.

Until the 'Inventor' performs a thorough and complete Energy Analysis
of the System the illusion will continue.

And then there's this (http://www.energeticforum.com/311998-post4027.html).
Those who are deceived find the need to express themselves angrily
as they defend their lack of education and their faulty thinking.
Credibility seriously at risk.

From this point onward (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-135.html#post311998) the discussion pretty much goes back into
Lala Land.  How disappointing.

This argument comes up quite frequently on that forum
but is it correct?  What does the kickback pulse actually
do?  Which battery is 'the battery' being referred to?

QuoteQuote from Matt:
That returned current is because of the HUGE spike of
voltage returned to the battery. This huge spike slows the
ions in the battery and allows the battery to take a charge.
This has been proven over and over for at least the last decade...

To be continued...

Well... at least someone is starting to use appropriate equipment and may be capable of testing with an appropriate protocol.

https://www.bkprecision.com/products/electrical-battery-testers/601B-6v-12v-sla-battery-capacity-analyzer.html

But ... it only costs around 450 USD....  and max 100 Ah capacity, so not so good for the huge marine deepcycle monsters that are now required.     :D

Hey Brad.

You're going to need to try one of these!!   ;)

Cheers Grum.

author=Chet K link=topic=3649.msg68852#msg68852 date=1532700063]

Quoteand honestly at the time Luc made the Vid it was more a "whats going on here ??"
how could this be a gain mechanism with all this Heat" ??

he did not feel it was possible to get a gain from the roasting hot motor ??
more a shop talk scenario than subterfuge...

Exactly how hot was the motor?
Watching Lucs video(which i remember now,as i told him to advance the timing on the motor,which i see he did in the video),to get an indication of P/in,we have to go by the DMM and current value on the P.S,as the current trace on the scope is being viewed in an RMS value,and not an average value as it should be done. The RMS value is including the reverse current back to the P.S,so cant be used to calculate P/in.

My question would be-->how hot can a small 16.8 watts of power input get that motor?.
If that large steel motor is getting roasting hot,then something else is going on there,as 16.8 watts isnt guna cut it.

Dose anyone here know how the !Matt motor! is wound,as i have a whole heap of them here,ready for the conversion  :D


Brad

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.07.29, 13:55:09
Hey Brad.

You're going to need to try one of these!!   ;)

Cheers Grum.


I rewound a 12 volt relay so as it would work like a buzzer,but it did not give the results like the PM DC motor did.

That is an old bit of gear you got there Grum  O0


Brad

Quote from: muDped on 2018.07.29, 03:18:55
This argument comes up quite frequently on that forum
but is it correct?  What does the kickback pulse actually
do?  Which battery is 'the battery' being referred to?


To be continued...

Well,Turion is well and truly lost.

Now,that Bistander guy seems to know what he is talking about(mostly)

Can anyone ask him if he could join us here in this thread?.


Brad

Hi Brad.

Indeed it is, they were used initially on the Ford model " T " ignition system. BTW, the primary coil of that " trembler box " will run at just over 2 volts DC.

Looking at the original Benitez patent there was both a primary and high frequency secondary circuit with a spark gap. I'm wondering if the secondary didn't need to be of a high voltage but maybe just a higher frequency?

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.07.29, 14:12:38
Hi Brad.

Indeed it is, they were used initially on the Ford model " T " ignition system. BTW, the primary coil of that " trembler box " will run at just over 2 volts DC.

QuoteLooking at the original Benitez patent there was both a primary and high frequency secondary circuit with a spark gap. I'm wondering if the secondary didn't need to be of a high voltage but maybe just a higher frequency?

Cheers Grum.

Im not sure Grum,as i have not looked to closely at the Benitez circuit,as there is only so many things we can do at once lol.

I am hoping that the rest of my Ebay order turns up this week,as there is a !more powerful! thingy McBobby in amongst it that i am dying to put to use. Frame is already built,and ready for the implant  O0


Brad

OK,for those interested.
Below is a couple of scope shots.
The first one is my 52F cap being discharged over one of my new 2 ohm 100watt precision resistors.

The second is 3 scope shots pieced together(the best i could).
It is one of my 500F caps being discharged over one of my new 1 ohm 100watt precision resistors.
I did not fully discharge it,as it was taking so bloody long,and i needed a coffee  :D

Anyway,these are the results.


Brad

Luc said it ran hot for just idling ,hot like it was already under load and he felt a load would roast it

I forgot to ask him if he still has it ,but will be talking to Carroll soon anyway
it is his motor [he will also know how to wind it ,Matt did make tutorial videos too]

the comments being made now at the EF forum are all out of context for the present device

which uses no big batteries etc etc and can make tens of HP in a simple settup
or much more with bigger builds
sometimes I think assumptions can be made without perspective

here is an example of assumptions which were made about a man and his path [ IMO] from Nelson Rocha [who was bandied about by some as a hack [MH at OU.com]]
https://www.youtube.com/user/batraquioo0

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.29, 14:33:51
Luc said it ran hot for just idling ,hot like it was already under load and he felt a load would roast it

I forgot to ask him if he still has it ,but will be talking to Carroll soon anyway
it is his motor [he will also know how to wind it ,Matt did make tutorial videos too]

the comments being made now at the EF forum are all out of context for the present device

which uses no big batteries etc etc and can make tens of HP in a simple settup
or much more with bigger builds
sometimes I think assumptions can be made without perspective

here is an example of assumptions which were made about a man and his path [ IMO] from Nelson Rocha [who was bandied about by some as a hack [MH at OU.com]]
https://www.youtube.com/user/batraquioo0

No big batteries,and 10s of HP-->horse power?.

Well,as i am not a member there,can some one please post the current setup design/schematic ?.

Seems every time you got to test the latest,it is no longer the latest  C.C


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.29, 14:53:12
No big batteries,and 10s of HP-->horse power?.

Brad

Sorry Brad.

Here's 5 HP.

Could this be the " sauce " of the energy?

Cheers Grum.

the recent conversations at EF are about an obsolete system which has been replaced by the actual
system which can do the tens of Horsepower and up with no  big batteries etc etc

you will not find tutorials on the present system at the forum

you will find the "how we got here" instructions

and as I understand it there is a Matt movie being done to show the old obsolete system doing what is claimed.

and for clarity the MO is said to have come from Benitez work .

ps
Grum

thx for the Model T coil Pic   O0 [not soo much the cheeseburger sauce HP pic ...makes some members here hungry and "bets" can occur ... :)

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.29, 14:23:45
OK,for those interested.
Below is a couple of scope shots.
The first one is my 52F cap being discharged over one of my new 2 ohm 100watt precision resistors.

The second is 3 scope shots pieced together(the best i could).
It is one of my 500F caps being discharged over one of my new 1 ohm 100watt precision resistors.
I did not fully discharge it,as it was taking so bloody long,and i needed a coffee  :D

Anyway,these are the results.


Brad

They look almost perfect exponentials, the first one says the capacity value is spot on at 52F.  The second one looks about 480F.
Smudge

Probably should split this thread ?
here is the Matt motor tutorial collection
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68QpDu4jKQXnhp7H7p7WsknDG4439vV3

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND

this is all old news stuff  "the how we got here" stuff [Benitez stuff...]

nothing like where the tech is now [HP cheeseburger sauce output power...

The Matt Motor tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68QpDu4jKQXnhp7H7p7WsknDG4439vV3) shows how to wind an
armature to make a two-pole retrograde device
which resembles the earliest of electrical motors.

This sort of motor construct is necessary to produce
current pulsations with inductive kickback to the
remainder of whatever circuit it is connected to.

This method of winding commutated armatures was
discontinued many years ago because of problems
with brush sparking (a problem Tesla devoted much
work towards) and reduced motor life.

It is possible to duplicate this motor action in a much
more reliable manner with brushless design and electronic
pulse control should it be desirable.

Whenever I see motor rewinds done on a bare armature
which doesn't seem to have in place the necessary
insulating material I wonder...

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi0yqhkr1r0) shows the proper method of preparing
the slots in the armature for rewinding.  It is in Pakistani
Language but the illustrations are quite clear.  Notice the
insulating material both in the slots and at the slot ends
covering the surface of the metal surrounding each end
of the shaft.

Putting the windings on bare steel is never a good idea.
It is not possible in Matt's tutorial to tell whether he has
taken the necessary precautions prior to winding.

Grum,
Your photo of the old Model T ignition coil brings back
memories.  I got one of those back in 1956 from an auto
parts outlet for either $3.95 or $4.95 and did many wonderful
experiments with it.  I used 6 Volt lantern batteries to power
it.

One of my high school classmate neighbors had a Model T
that was in near perfect condition (complete with 'beehive')
at that time.  He picked it up for $25.00 from a farmer.
Dollars had some value back in those days.

Those 'Good Old Days' really were pretty good!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here are links to some YouTube channels which are quite
interesting.  Several videos can be found with details for
constructing low rpm generators (alternators) to be driven
either by hydro power or wind power:

MuddyMuddyMuddMann (https://www.youtube.com/user/muddymuddymuddmann/videos?disable_polymer=1)

MarkP0177 (https://www.youtube.com/user/markp0177/videos?disable_polymer=1)

TheBillyTheJack2010 (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBillythekid2010/videos?disable_polymer=1)

Lots of other videos too which address producing electrical
power.  The Axial Flux Wind Turbine Generator which has been
built for several decades now is strikingly similar to the generator
Matt's latest video (https://youtu.be/ghMriKx8tQY) shows.

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.07.29, 15:24:19
Sorry Brad.

Here's 5 HP.

Could this be the " sauce " of the energy?

Cheers Grum.

Lol

We go all out here,an buy it in 4 liter bottles.

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.29, 16:28:28
Probably should split this thread ?
here is the Matt motor tutorial collection
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL68QpDu4jKQXnhp7H7p7WsknDG4439vV3

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND

this is all old news stuff  "the how we got here" stuff [Benitez stuff...]

nothing like where the tech is now [HP cheeseburger sauce output power...

No need to split the thread Chet--lets keep it all in one place,so as we dont have threads all over the show.

Looking at how it is wound,it's no wonder it gets hot--thats the worst winding job i have ever seen.

It would be far better to leave the motor stock,and use a PWM and forward diode to get the needed flyback.

It just dose not work using the brushes to break the circuit to get flyback,because you need the brushes in contact with the coil in order to have a path for the flyback to follow. As the flyback happens when the brushes leave the coil contacts,most of the energy is burnt up in the arcing between commutator segments and the brushes.

I doubt very much that this setup got them anywhere,and i do not think we will see the !secret sauce! product they have now,that puts out 10s of bottles of sauce  :D


Brad

Quote from: Smudge on 2018.07.29, 15:40:29
They look almost perfect exponentials, the first one says the capacity value is spot on at 52F.  The second one looks about 480F.
Smudge

So,my question is--are they behaving like a normal cap,and can we use the 1/2CV*2 method?.


Brad

Matt's 1st Vid in the "How we got here" series ,he expects to be done by next weekend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMriKx8tQY&feature=youtu.be

QuoteQuote from Tin Man:
No need to split the thread Chet--lets keep it all in one
place, so as we don't have threads all over the show.

I very much agree.  It's all related to arriving at the most
complete understanding of what we're discussing and
observing.

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.29, 23:48:57
Matt's 1st Vid in the "How we got here" series ,he expects to be done by next weekend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMriKx8tQY&feature=youtu.be

I see that pollycarb flywheel flying to pieces,and big 2 inch neo projectiles flying around the workshop.
Probably end up killing him self.

When you say-how we got here,where exactly is here?

I have the large caps now,so lets put together there current setup,and see if there is anything in it.
Do we have a schematic of there 10 sauce bottles+ setup?

Brad

Ok,i have decided to wind a !Matt! Motor,will make a start on it tonight,as i need to know how and why it can send that small portion of current back to the source battery.

My guess is that-for the first split second of brush contact with the coils,the BEMF is at a higher potential to that of the source EMF.
How this can be without an increase in RPM?,well im not sure yet.

I see Matt has resorted to name calling now,and has renamed bistander.
Isn't it funny that the ones that question the imposible,are the ones that alway cop what they dont deserve.

Chet
Drop a message to bistander if you could please,and see if you can get him over here.


Brad

I'll make a few calls today on the what is  "here" question

a bit more clarity will be good IMO

Bistander is a builder and a believer....[in the possibilities of OU

hopefully some clarity on that too

If I could add a comment here.  As most of you know I have worked with Matt and Dave for several years now on the 3 battery generating system.  I also have had many discussions with Bistander as he and I both have spent many hours on the EF trying to correct a lot of the mistaken ideas there as well as trying to help new experimenters.

It seems to me everyone is getting overly excited about the spike back to the battery.  That was NOT the primary purpose of the Matt Modified motor.  We learned that the battery in the charging or 3rd battery position charged much better if it was charged with pulses.  So Matt did an interesting job modifying a motor to do that as Dave is electronically challenged and didn't want anything solid state.  The spike back to the supply side was an interesting side effect.  However as far as I recall it was never intended to keep the supply battery or batteries charged.  As Dave has said at least a couple of hundred times it takes the complete system to get OU.

I consider Matt and Dave both personal friends.  I have actually spent time with Matt when he had business to attend to near me.  As far as I know neither of them have any formal training in the electrical or electronic fields.  Because of that their explanations are sometimes hard to follow.  They don't always use the proper terms.  Especially Dave.

I have kind of dropped out of working with the 3 battery system as I have just been too busy with other things.  My personal life has gotten very complicated in the last couple of years.  Chet knows what I am talking about as I have shared some of my personal details with him that I really don't want to get into publicly.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Good morning All.

I'm reminded of proposed systems that have gone before. Some explanations also hark back to earlier " pioneers " !

What about the elegant solution that Nikola Tesla showed in the " Ozone " patent? A segmented disc that controlled the input to the drive motor? This would ensure that the armature wouldn't need rewinding removing the possibility of " shorted " turns.

Brad, you showed us some time back how to add a second commutator to a motor shaft, there's your answer.

Although my training was in the electric area I'm far more comfortable in the mechanical,  IMO there's " nowt " wrong in using good old fashioned technology.

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.29, 23:33:49
So,my question is--are they behaving like a normal cap,and can we use the 1/2CV*2 method?.


Brad

From those discharge curves I would say yes.  If you use the 1/2CV^2 method to determine the energy at any two voltages and compare the difference with the energy delivered to the resistor you get a close correlation over the range of voltages you use.
Smudge

Hi Carroll,

I also would add a comment here on this topic you addressed.

You wrote: "As far as I know neither of them have any formal training in the electrical or electronic fields.  Because of that their explanations are sometimes hard to follow.  They don't always use the proper terms.  Especially Dave."

This is fine with me, I understand this. What I do not understand and find unacceptable is: why do they attack, reprimand, put to the Ignore list etc anybody (like for instance Luc or Bistander) who simply dares to ask relevant questions or dares to try explaining why what they say is technically not correct ?  There is nothing that justifies this attitude from Dave or Matt, what is more Matt uses vulgarism and rudeness. 

This is why I have avoided commenting in those relevant threads they mainly participate in at the energeticforum, during the last couple of years.

Gyula

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.07.30, 10:28:18
Good morning All.

I'm reminded of proposed systems that have gone before. Some explanations also hark back to earlier " pioneers " !

What about the elegant solution that Nikola Tesla showed in the " Ozone " patent? A segmented disc that controlled the input to the drive motor? This would ensure that the armature wouldn't need rewinding removing the possibility of " shorted " turns.

Brad, you showed us some time back how to add a second commutator to a motor shaft, there's your answer.

Although my training was in the electric area I'm far more comfortable in the mechanical,  IMO there's " nowt " wrong in using good old fashioned technology.

Cheers Grum.

Yes,that was for the rotoverter project.

This time im going to stick with the !inventors! design,so as they cant say--you did it all wrong,and that is why it dose not work.

I also want to find out how current is being returned to the source,as i cannot see it being the flyback,as the current from the flyback would be going the wrong way,and the voltage across the coils would invert during the flyback portion.

Im adding a little something to the !Matt! motor,so as i can find out exactly what is going on here.
Video up soon.


Brad

First video of my !Matt! motor build.

This winding configuration looks a lot like the way they use to wind motors many years ago.

Anyway,lets stick to the claimants design,and wind our bathroom heater  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI2wxBBWPyY


Brad

Quote from: gyula on 2018.07.30, 13:37:02
Hi Carroll,

I also would add a comment here on this topic you addressed.

You wrote: "As far as I know neither of them have any formal training in the electrical or electronic fields.  Because of that their explanations are sometimes hard to follow.  They don't always use the proper terms.  Especially Dave."

This is fine with me, I understand this. What I do not understand and find unacceptable is: why do they attack, reprimand, put to the Ignore list etc anybody (like for instance Luc or Bistander) who simply dares to ask relevant questions or dares to try explaining why what they say is technically not correct ?  There is nothing that justifies this attitude from Dave or Matt, what is more Matt uses vulgarism and rudeness. 

This is why I have avoided commenting in those relevant threads they mainly participate in at the energeticforum, during the last couple of years.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

I don't agree with the name calling either.  But Matt is just Matt.  He is just a plain old country boy who has spent years working with and learning about electronics.  As far as I know Dave has never put anyone on his ignore list.  He pretty much just accepts whoever shows even a little interest in what he is doing.  While Matt can be abrasive at times he also is a pretty good innovator.  I have seen some pretty interesting ideas from him over the years.  Most of them have now been shared on the energetic forum.

Respectfully,
Carroll

OK,watching the last of the series of video's,i see the motors they are using are a 4 pole motor,and not a two pole such as most of the scooter motors over here are.

All the motors i have are 2 pole motors,with a single set  of brushes.

So now that i see they are 4 pole motors(should have watched all the videos first),it starts to make sense as to how it is sending current back to the source,and why the motor gets so hot.

I will continue the build,as i think the two pole will show us what we want to see,and not get so hot in the process.


Brad

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.29, 15:33:51
the recent conversations at EF are about an obsolete system which has been replaced by the actual
system which can do the tens of Horsepower and up with no  big batteries etc etc

you will not find tutorials on the present system at the forum

you will find the "how we got here" instructions

and as I understand it there is a Matt movie being done to show the old obsolete system doing what is claimed.

and for clarity the MO is said to have come from Benitez work .

snip

Correct!

The "three battery system" is obsolete. Why? because they have a new solid state device in the works that they have for sale (or may even have been sold)

Matt got quite excited when I mentioned this Solid State device on Energetic and so I had to delete my post.

So the present game/presentation is just camouflage, smoke and mirrors if you like, to hide any real information coming out as to what they are doing.

Best not to play their game at this time.

Ron

QuoteQuote from Ronee:
Best not to play their game at this time.

Aye, unfortunately, it does indeed seem to be a game.

Ron
Not how I understand it,

They really do want to see successful replications of the old system

It's more an "I told you soo" moment than attempts to distract

I believe Matt sincerely wants to show this working,

And will

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.30, 16:30:20
Ron
Not how I understand it,

They really do want to see successful replications of the old system

It's more an "I told you soo" moment than attempts to distract

I believe Matt sincerely wants to show this working,

And will

Chet

Well in a worst case scenario they have sold out, not allowed to talk about the new solid state system, which will be stored on a shelf somewhere, which we shall never see and so to save face all they can mention is the old obsolete system, which after 8 years doesn't seem to have that many successful replications up and running all over the country?

Be nice if that was not the case.

Ron

PS: even Dave was not off grid with the three battery system and came right out and said it (the big generator) didn't work that well and that was the reason why it was under the bench and not on the bench.

Ok,so i am just wasting my time with this?.

So we now have a solid state system that we cant get the schematic to?

I thought it was the combination of the Matt motor,and wonder generator that was the key to OU?.


Brad

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.07.30, 10:28:18
Good morning All.

I'm reminded of proposed systems that have gone before. Some explanations also hark back to earlier " pioneers " !

What about the elegant solution that Nikola Tesla showed in the " Ozone " patent? A segmented disc that controlled the input to the drive motor? This would ensure that the armature wouldn't need rewinding removing the possibility of " shorted " turns.

Brad, you showed us some time back how to add a second commutator to a motor shaft, there's your answer.

Although my training was in the electric area I'm far more comfortable in the mechanical,  IMO there's " nowt " wrong in using good old fashioned technology.

Cheers Grum.

I prefer mechanical as well Graham,and yea,it is easy enough to fit a second comutator or slip rings to the motor,but that doesn't give you a means to control the motor,or change the winding configuration.

It seems that the Matt motor was only designed to pulse charge battery 3. This being the case,why not just use a PWM?.
This would save the brushes,and give you a means to capture the flyback if you so wish to do so.

The fact that they (Matt and Dave) insist that you need a Matt motor to achieve OU,shows how little they know about what is actually going on in there own system.

I do have 1x 4 pole motor,im sure you have seen it in a few of my video's.  Its the 24v 1HP PM motor,but im not prepared to junk that on this device.

And then there is the !speed up under load! wonder generator,that is now needed to gain OU.

Now we have gone another step,where we have the solid state version. Seems they jump to the next step before anyone has confirmed OU in the last step.

Oh well,I'll just keep plugging away with the motor rewind,and see what we find.


Brad

Well we have some answers.
No magic in the Matt motor to be seen.
Just inductive spikes and brush arcing messing with the power supplies.
Seems to mess with mine the same as it did with Luc's,as it would with all these types of electronic controlled power supplies without filtering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRhVpAIxgEc


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.07.31, 13:39:12
Well we have some answers.
No magic in the Matt motor to be seen.
Just inductive spikes and brush arcing messing with the power supplies.
Seems to mess with mine the same as it did with Luc's,as it would with all these types of electronic controlled power supplies without filtering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRhVpAIxgEc


Brad

Excellent experiment Brad, well done. This confirms my view also. Thanks for taking the time to run this!

Ron

Aye, thank you Brad for taking the time and trouble
to shed some light on what may be happening.  Very
well done!  Your scope display was very clear and
well synchronized.

Your demonstration well illustrates how positioning of
the brushes to the commutator (adjusting the timing from
retarded to advanced) affects motor operation and current
draw.

Well
spoke with Dave a bit today
he said there will be no selling out and shelving ,not gonna happen.

and also the one battery Motor generator system Matt is building this week will show a true gain.

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.31, 18:48:16
Well
spoke with Dave a bit today
he said there will be no selling out and shelving ,not gonna happen.

and also the one battery Motor generator system Matt is building this week will show a true gain.

All is good then... thanks for checking that out.

Ron

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.31, 18:48:16
Well
spoke with Dave a bit today
he said there will be no selling out and shelving ,not gonna happen.

and also the one battery Motor generator system Matt is building this week will show a true gain.

OK,so i have to build a !speed up under load! generator to couple to my matt motor  O0

Have plenty of wire,so no problem.


Brad

Well,here is my reply to those that think that my replication is not a replication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBuWQni0znU

Now,dose any one have,or can anyone get the latest 3BG system,or what ever the latest system is?


Brad

Can some one get hold of an actual !Matt motor!,and send it to me.
I will pay for the shipping,providing it's not more than what it would cost me to buy a new one of ebay(about $80.00).


Cheers


Brad

These motors are in the Chinese import scooters ..... [called Razor over here ,I believe I have a schematic from Dave somewhere.

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.02, 12:04:25
Well,here is my reply to those that think that my replication is not a replication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBuWQni0znU

Now,dose any one have,or can anyone get the latest 3BG system,or what ever the latest system is?


Brad

This is the last one Dave posted that people were working on.... I believe Matt is building something up using this layout as well and has promised a video this weekend last I heard.....

Ed

According to David, this is the latest schematic they have made public.  It looks like Dragon was posting the same time I was.  Oh well.  Now we two posts with the drawing.

Quote from: CITFTA on 2018.08.02, 18:37:43
According to David, this is the latest schematic they have made public.  It looks like Dragon was posting the same time I was.  Oh well.  Now we two posts with the drawing.

Well that's an odd looking setup.
So we need 2 boost converters now ?.

Brad

Hi Brad,

Yes, two step up converters.
I think the measurements done on this setup by Bistander is also useful to know about. 
Here is his "Test 3" results attached to his post here:  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-132.html#post311870  (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-132.html#post311870)
And here is his "Test 4" attached to his post here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-133.html#post311899  (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-133.html#post311899) 

It is also enlightening to read the comments others made to his measured results.

Gyula

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.02, 18:21:15
This is the last one Dave posted that people were working on.... I believe Matt is building something up using this layout as well and has promised a video this weekend last I heard.....

Ed

Well looking at the schematic again,i can see why many of them over at EF are burning up boost modules.
The ground-or negative of the battery has to go through the output stage of the second boost module to complete the circuit for the motor,and also is directly tied to the positive of the battery ???

I will have to put this together,and see what happens--smoke i think :D

Brad

Has anyone else thought that there seem to be
wiring errors as depicted in the block diagram?

The connections to the Source Battery at its left
side don't all make sense.  Good eye Brad!

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.02, 22:54:44
Hi Brad,

Yes, two step up converters.
I think the measurements done on this setup by Bistander is also useful to know about. 
Here is his "Test 3" results attached to his post here:  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-132.html#post311870  (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-132.html#post311870)
And here is his "Test 4" attached to his post here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-133.html#post311899  (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-133.html#post311899) 

It is also enlightening to read the comments others made to his measured results.

Gyula

Where is the ground/negative lead going to from the first boost module?--the one between the battery and motor.


Brad

Well, the negative output wire from the 1st converter goes to nowhere.  The motor is driven between the positives of the battery and the boost output, the voltage difference is 35V-12V=23V, this difference drives the motor.
In the converter circuit board the negative input and negative output 'leads' are common internally,  this is not an isolated type converter. 

The (50 Ohm) load is also driven by the voltage difference between two other positives, the positive output of 2nd module and the positive of the input battery (30.2-12=18.2V).

The text under the boost module and inside the 2nd module (set to 26V) should be disregarded of course, it was the very first initial suggestion from Dave I think.

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.03, 08:03:42
Well, the negative output wire from the 1st converter goes to nowhere.  The motor is driven between the positives of the battery and the boost output, the voltage difference is 35V-12V=23V, this difference drives the motor.
In the converter circuit board the negative input and negative output 'leads' are common internally,  this is not an isolated type converter. 

The (50 Ohm) load is also driven by the voltage difference between two other positives, the positive output of 2nd module and the positive of the input battery (30.2-12=18.2V).

The text under the boost module and inside the 2nd module (set to 26V) should be disregarded of course, it was the very first initial suggestion from Dave I think.

Gyula

OK,i have removed the generator side of the circuit--see pic below

Anyone else see a problem here?


Brad

Hi Brad,

One problem is that the load (in this case a motor) is connected across the positive input and positive output of a step up converter so the load current is driven through the internal circuit of the converter between its positives and this may influence the normal dissipation for the components involved, an unusual and not recommended operation for boost converters.

Another problem is that if the load is a pulse motor,  then it cannot provide much charge current back to the battery unless the pulse motor is modified to provide the flyback or any induced voltage to appear between galvanically independent positive and negative voltage outputs hooked up back to the battery. Such is not shown if it had been meant.

I came across with such kind of setup your simplified drawing shows in a thread here:
https://overunity.com/17184/a-solid-state-dc-to-dc-converter/msg502041/topicseen/#msg502041  (https://overunity.com/17184/a-solid-state-dc-to-dc-converter/msg502041/topicseen/#msg502041)

The youtube user, 'debunkified' claimed overunity for such setup. However, he calculated the power in the load (the load was the internal resistance of his DC Ampermeter) as the output voltage of the converter (between its positive and negative output wires) multiplied by the the load current his meter showed, completely disregarding the actual voltage across the load (i.e. across the positives) which was much smaller than the output voltage across the positive and the negative outputs of the converter.

Gyula

It's easier to see as a circuit instead of a block diagram...

Ed

Hi Ed,

I am not fully familiar with the modified Matt motor: when the brushes flip the contacts then any voltage across the motor coil in those moments appear across the brushes, is this correct?

Gyula

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.03, 11:52:40
It's easier to see as a circuit instead of a block diagram...

Ed

Somewhat reminiscent of Brad's "Rotary Transformer" Whatever happened to that?

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.03, 12:15:20
Hi Ed,

I am not fully familiar with the modified Matt motor: when the brushes flip the contacts then any voltage across the motor coil in those moments appear across the brushes, is this correct?

Gyula

That's how I visualize it,  I have no experience in building or testing the motor, in an attempt to "mimic" the motor actions I built a circuit a couple years back which I posted on EF while playing with the 3BS.  (below)...

Using batteries led to lots of questions as it appeared to run pretty stable over time.   What would happen is the voltage would read stable while the capacity of the battery was being drained.  At that point it would all fall off drastically.   

Ed

Quote from: ion on 2018.08.03, 13:38:17
Somewhat reminiscent of Brad's "Rotary Transformer" Whatever happened to that?

It's sitting on the shelf not 6 foot away from me.


Brad

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.03, 11:52:40
It's easier to see as a circuit instead of a block diagram...

Ed

I see two problems

1st-i see a nice big fat juicy current loop
2nd-why is the current on the negative rail lower than the current on the positive rail?--see 1st problem


Brad

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.03, 14:07:32


Using batteries led to lots of questions as it appeared to run pretty stable over time.   What would happen is the voltage would read stable while the capacity of the battery was being drained.  At that point it would all fall off drastically.   

Ed

Yes
A common error in the B-E-D-I-N-I camp


Brad

I pointed that out on EF.   Matt was measuring current on the pos rail and calculating the run time of the battery with a given Ah rating.    He was using 7ah battery saying it would normally run for an hour or less at that current but showed it running for 2 hours.    If the actual drain of the battery was used ( neg rail current) then the 2 hour run would be closer to the correct calculations.   

Ed

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.03, 11:47:45
Hi Brad,

One problem is that the load (in this case a motor) is connected across the positive input and positive output of a step up converter so the load current is driven through the internal circuit of the converter between its positives and this may influence the normal dissipation for the components involved, an unusual and not recommended operation for boost converters.

Another problem is that if the load is a pulse motor,  then it cannot provide much charge current back to the battery unless the pulse motor is modified to provide the flyback or any induced voltage to appear between galvanically independent positive and negative voltage outputs hooked up back to the battery. Such is not shown if it had been meant.

I came across with such kind of setup your simplified drawing shows in a thread here:
https://overunity.com/17184/a-solid-state-dc-to-dc-converter/msg502041/topicseen/#msg502041  (https://overunity.com/17184/a-solid-state-dc-to-dc-converter/msg502041/topicseen/#msg502041)

The youtube user, 'debunkified' claimed overunity for such setup. However, he calculated the power in the load (the load was the internal resistance of his DC Ampermeter) as the output voltage of the converter (between its positive and negative output wires) multiplied by the the load current his meter showed, completely disregarding the actual voltage across the load (i.e. across the positives) which was much smaller than the output voltage across the positive and the negative outputs of the converter.

Gyula

Hi Gyula

Yea,i saw that video,and spotted the error.



Brad

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.03, 15:08:57
I pointed that out on EF.   Matt was measuring current on the pos rail and calculating the run time of the battery with a given Ah rating.    He was using 7ah battery saying it would normally run for an hour or less at that current but showed it running for 2 hours.    If the actual drain of the battery was used ( neg rail current) then the 2 hour run would be closer to the correct calculations.   

Ed

Yes,and there in lies there mistake.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.03, 14:38:05
It's sitting on the shelf not 6 foot away from me.


Brad

Maybe time to get it off the shelf has it seemed to have more promise and better measurement protocol than any of the stuff playing the "battery shell game". If I recall only one battery or power supply used and a visible measurable gain.

Hi Ed,

Okay on the schema 'mimicking' the motor actions, back then I saw it at EF (together with the other drawing on the motor coil with the brushes and the arrows indicating the changing voltage directions).
The reason for my question was you included two switches in the schematic I am curious where the 2nd switch is in the modified Matt motor?  Perhaps it is an electrically controlled active switch or another pair of brushes.  The goal would be to capture as much energy coming back from the motor coil for reuse as possible, I suppose. 

Thanks
Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.03, 19:42:45
Hi Ed,

Okay on the schema 'mimicking' the motor actions, back then I saw it at EF (together with the other drawing on the motor coil with the brushes and the arrows indicating the changing voltage directions).
The reason for my question was you included two switches in the schematic I am curious where the 2nd switch is in the modified Matt motor?  Perhaps it is an electrically controlled active switch or another pair of brushes.  The goal would be to capture as much energy coming back from the motor coil for reuse as possible, I suppose. 

Thanks
Gyula

Hi Gyula,  it's not really an exact replication of the motor action - how I visualized what the motor was doing - similar responses moving energy back to the source while charging the 3rd battery and driving a load( more like a boost converter with 2 current paths based on the switch position).   The polarity of the coil doesn't change as would the coil in the motor.

I couldn't say for sure how much energy the motor would move back to the source and this circuit seemed a bit more efficient than a motor at the time.  I could be wrong, like I said I didn't build the Matt motor...

Ed

Matt posted a progress vid
Seems hopeful to have it running by Sunday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiAGXVZf5G8&feature=youtu.be

Quote from: ion on 2018.08.03, 17:15:14
Maybe time to get it off the shelf has it seemed to have more promise and better measurement protocol than any of the stuff playing the "battery shell game". If I recall only one battery or power supply used and a visible measurable gain.

Yes,but what is not seen is the invisible loss over time.

The machine is to expensive to run.

If and when i can sort the problem,then it will be re-investigated.
Chet knows the problem,and he also knows who was working on that problem with me,until that came to a sad and abrupt end.
Rather than talk about it here,feel free to discuss it with Chet in private if you wish.


Brad

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.03, 21:14:09
Matt posted a progress vid
Seems hopeful to have it running by Sunday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiAGXVZf5G8&feature=youtu.be

His building skills are quite good.
I think he has a CNC mill--that would be nice to have sitting in the workshop  O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.04, 00:01:43
His building skills are quite good.
I think he has a CNC mill--that would be nice to have sitting in the workshop  O0


Brad

Maybe, but I thought he contracted out the making of the polycarbonate pieces? And I laughed out loud when he
talked about hammering down the coil bobbin ends to try to get them to fit -- and of course they still didn't, causing
the whole assembly to be out of kilter.

I think anyone who has wound coils on bobbins has probably encountered that particular problem as the windings
push the bobbin ends outwards. One might anticipate this and correct for it while winding... or one might not.
:P

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.08.04, 09:03:45
Maybe, but I thought he contracted out the making of the polycarbonate pieces? And I laughed out loud when he
talked about hammering down the coil bobbin ends to try to get them to fit -- and of course they still didn't, causing
the whole assembly to be out of kilter.

I think anyone who has wound coils on bobbins has probably encountered that particular problem as the windings
push the bobbin ends outwards. One might anticipate this and correct for it while winding... or one might not.
:P

Yes,the bobbin ends were a bit thin.
I always use 5mm or thicker polycarb for bobbin ends--unless im cheating,and using old transformer bobbins.

I did hear him mention in one of his video's that he had a mill,and also dose a lot of 3D printing.

In saying that,he is putting 2"round x 1" thick neo's in that there rotor,and spinning it up to 6000RPM--so he says.
Would not like to be around when that rotor lets go.


Brad

I could be wrong
but I believe Matt Built his CNC rig

he's a one man band Farmer ,does everything mostly himself
and havin the ability to fix all his equipment was very important [sanz his wee machine shop

To note
these two are well aware of flying magnets , danger and collateral damage
Dave got whacked good..... some time back [mighta broke a rib ??

and I seem to remember Holes in walls mentioned in some of Matts posts ;and him teasing Dave for being in the line of fire when he got whacked.

so yes
they are aware what they're doing could mortally wound them.[or someone else nearby
as well the power they play with could kill [Dave mentions this too, to would be replicators

Ignorance (lack of education and real experience) can be haughty
and prideful. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-138.html#post312171)  Not to mention unwilling to "listen."

Both have now demonstrated that they enjoy using
foul language to attack those who provide honest
critique and ask difficult questions.

Closed minds can be a serious handicap.

Hopefully we shall soon see some evidence of actual
performance which can be candidly verified.

There is an easy solution to the risk of 'flying magnets.'
The wind power folk who've been building generators
similar to what Matt is now constructing solved the
problem long ago.  Plastics are not a suitable material
for rotors which are loaded with heavy magnets.

Brushless Motors are now readily available quite
inexpensively.  They also function as really good
alternators.

This segment of the discussion is quite revealing. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-138.html#post312179)
Neither Matt nor Dave speak as educated men
but rather as uneducated 'pie in the sky' children.
This sort of behavior is all too common amongst
the Free Energy crowd of those who make fantastic
claims.

Bistander, to his credit, makes excellent argument and
credible requests for 'proof' to both the main proponents.
One can only wonder why they are so evasive and resort
to uncouth attack as their defense.  Truly a ridiculous lack
of self-control in nearly all of their writings. Credibility
seriously at risk.  Have they contracted the Erron Bug?

Well I guess this response answers the question. (http://www.energeticforum.com/312206-post4137.html)  How
can anyone take the whole drama seriously?

It would be refreshing to see Dave and Matt conduct
themselves as real men rather than resorting to all of their
childish foolishness.  Apparently it is just a game to them...

MuDped

your a sailor ....I think you missed the best quote  for  perspective

I believe this quote is where the Venom comes from . [and this quote does have a familiar ring ?]


bistander

Quote

admit they are false claims, and I'll get out of here.

Regards,

bi

end quote
------------------------------------------------------------


basically "admit you are frauds and liars and ....... .

so an anonymous fellow is good with these two known men trashing their reputations .
that is the benchmark he requires for his departure  from their thread.
----------
that's good for a "Dust up" on any boat .


and to be perfectly clear

I have always believed Dave from the first time I spoke with him [maybe almost ten years now??] when he had that battery last for weeks running BIG loads ,

thats what put him on this path ,and I believe they found the source ,or at least how to manifest the gain ,they may not actually understand it.... but they can do it.

just one mans opinion



I hope they do the demmo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


unrelated to this Topic

member Ricards at Energetic posted this Vid and a new thread

"My search for free energy is over"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=XnmL6CwIAv4

thread here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21038-my-search-free-energy-over.html

I have always felt member ricards a level headed fellow with strong opinions towards good measurement protocols and honesty.

I am aware of how most here feel about Admin at that forum ,I did not post this here for
conflict...just observing [the fact that ricards posted it gave me pause

Chet,

It is improbable that Dave and Matt are intentionally
'Frauds and Liars' but more likely that they are deceived
due to their lack of comprehensive education and
experience.  While they are undoubtedly learning much
as they proceed with their projects, what is puzzling is
their unscientific emotionalism, childish behavior and
their apparent need to trash-talk any who seek more
proof of their fantastic claims.

Suggesting that many should 'replicate' their efforts and
designs, which are clearly hazardous to life and limb, is
never a good idea.  Again, pointing to lack of experience
and lack of real concern for the welfare of others.

Certain behaviors are inexcusable no matter how 'sincere'
the actor seems to be.

Does it really matter that any who participate in the discussion
use handles without revealing their true names?  Particularly
within the forum which is noted for abusive language and
dishonest reporting?

Apparently Dave and Matt believe that by cleverly claiming
to be 'Frauds and Liars' they have outsmarted their 'thorn in
the side,' but again, this is naught but childish deception.  For
what real purpose?

Acting like a Liberal Snowflake isn't really going to impress
any serious minded observers favorably.

So it really is just a game isn't it?

Quote from: Chet
...I believe they found the source ,or at least how to manifest
the gain ,they may not actually understand it.... but they can do it.

While many of us wonder whether it will actually manifest, we
shall see...  The Game goes on.

Bistander has responded as a Manly Adult.  I tend to agree.

well
I did just hang up with Dave ,he assured me Matt's Demmo unit is all built and just awaiting magnets

and Matt is very willing to show this working ,maybe by next weekend .


regarding forum interactions ,behaviors etc etc .....

not an easy topic IMO

hopefully this pending demonstration will happen and shine a light.

respectfully

Chet

PS
MuDped
I hope you don't mind me dropping this off topic post here [below]
if so I will remove it



unrelated to this Topic

member Ricards at Energetic posted this Vid and a new thread

"My search for free energy is over"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=XnmL6CwIAv4

thread here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21038-my-search-free-energy-over.html

I have always felt member ricards a level headed fellow with strong opinions towards good measurement protocols and honesty.

I am aware of how most here feel about Admin at that forum ,I did not post this here for
conflict...just observing [the fact that ricards posted it gave me pause

Edit to add
David called me back and assured me the demonstration will absolutely take place/

Chet,

I have no objection at all to any of your postings or
links.  It is all relevant and related.  Thank you for
the link by the way.  Very interesting video.
Eric tells incredible stories about his past experiences.
I'm familiar with the location Eric talks about.  The ship
I was aboard underwent a prolonged maintenance there
in 1962.

Matt found some magnets, and just getting use to the build.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6OFnkhbYE&feature=youtu.be

EDIT to add
Answer to Brad below

some folks are most curious about Erics comments

and I am curious about where ricards is going with this.

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.06, 09:01:34
MuDped

your a sailor ....I think you missed the best quote  for  perspective

I believe this quote is where the Venom comes from . [and this quote does have a familiar ring ?]


bistander

Quote

admit they are false claims, and I'll get out of here.

Regards,

bi

end quote
------------------------------------------------------------


basically "admit you are frauds and liars and ....... .

so an anonymous fellow is good with these two known men trashing their reputations .
that is the benchmark he requires for his departure  from their thread.
----------
that's good for a "Dust up" on any boat .


and to be perfectly clear

I have always believed Dave from the first time I spoke with him [maybe almost ten years now??] when he had that battery last for weeks running BIG loads ,

thats what put him on this path ,and I believe they found the source ,or at least how to manifest the gain ,they may not actually understand it.... but they can do it.

just one mans opinion



I hope they do the demmo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


unrelated to this Topic

member Ricards at Energetic posted this Vid and a new thread

"My search for free energy is over"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=XnmL6CwIAv4

thread here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21038-my-search-free-energy-over.html

I have always felt member ricards a level headed fellow with strong opinions towards good measurement protocols and honesty.

I am aware of how most here feel about Admin at that forum ,I did not post this here for
conflict...just observing [the fact that ricards posted it gave me pause

One single post saying thanks for the video  ???

I dont think we need Errons garbage on this thread.

Here is a challenge--
Can anyone name one good device,or one bit of good advice that has come from Erron?.


Brad

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.07, 00:18:41
Matt found some magnets, and just getting use to the build.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6OFnkhbYE&feature=youtu.be

EDIT to add
Answer to Brad below

some folks are most curious about Erics comments

and I am curious about where ricards is going with this.

What a nice fellow.

To quote what he says in his video-- we dont want the f--king bi asshole coming back.

Just go's to show his true nature.

I wonder if he will make a public apology when he see's no OU in his system--i bet not.

As far as Eric Dollard go's,well long term drug abuse makes you believe in all sorts of whackadoo stuff.


Brad

Well,just read the last few pages of the EF thread,and all i can say is Matt and Dave are two lost soul's,and a pair of idiots.

They clearly have very little understanding or below basic level measurement knowhow.
Most of us here understand what is going on with the !speedup under load! generators,and i have uploaded many video's showing what is taking place. But Matt and Dave still think they have some type of wonderful generator that is lenz free :D
There wonder generator is 4 magnets passing two coils--if only we had thought of doing that C.C

Then Matt go's on to say that he has to tune this !wonder! generator.
It's 4 magnets passing 2 coils FFS--how much,or what kind of tuning could you possibly do to this generator?. Move the magnets closer to,or further away from the coils-thats it.

There will be no OU from this system.
The Matt motor is very inefficient,and we know this by the amount of heat it produces.
The generator is a standard setup that many of us have been playing with on the bench for years.

So yes-those two are FOS.


Brad

telluric energy is being bandied about by Wesley [in a big way],I believe this is also a topic Dollard has investigated extensively.

no stone left unturned.

RE the Matt Video
it is unlisted [not for general public you tube channel] ,,and I am seeing this for the first time too .

would seem a miracle if this makes extra energy

but I have always felt somehow it would be something which was unconventional that would lead
to a breakthru [having been overlooked for what seemed like very obvious reasons at the time ]

 

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.06, 09:01:34
MuDped

your a sailor ....I think you missed the best quote  for  perspective

I believe this quote is where the Venom comes from . [and this quote does have a familiar ring ?]


bistander

Quote

admit they are false claims, and I'll get out of here.

Regards,

bi

end quote
------------------------------------------------------------


basically "admit you are frauds and liars and ....... .

so an anonymous fellow is good with these two known men trashing their reputations .
that is the benchmark he requires for his departure  from their thread.
----------
that's good for a "Dust up" on any boat .


and to be perfectly clear

I have always believed Dave from the first time I spoke with him [maybe almost ten years now??] when he had that battery last for weeks running BIG loads ,

thats what put him on this path ,and I believe they found the source ,or at least how to manifest the gain ,they may not actually understand it.... but they can do it.

just one mans opinion



I hope they do the demmo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


unrelated to this Topic

member Ricards at Energetic posted this Vid and a new thread

"My search for free energy is over"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=XnmL6CwIAv4

thread here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/21038-my-search-free-energy-over.html

I have always felt member ricards a level headed fellow with strong opinions towards good measurement protocols and honesty.

I am aware of how most here feel about Admin at that forum ,I did not post this here for
conflict...just observing [the fact that ricards posted it gave me pause

OK,so as pain staking as it was,i have started watching the video above--and glad i have.
A report at the 3 minute mark lol

Who remembers JBs zero force motor ?,the one that beat all others.
Old mate Aaron the rookie just made a slip up.
What was that he said from 3:10 in the video?--the zero force motor had an efficiency of 20%,and the new guy there has managed to get it up to 40% efficiency  ???  ;D   

We all know how much Aarons crew love to quote Tesla's work in there own,so as the book sales go up.
But what was that Eric said from 51:30 ?
Quote: Tesla was such a cryptic person,we really dont know what he really had in mind  O0

So,from this video we have learned two things
1-the zero force motor was an inefficient garbage pack
2-when the !Aaron! crew start quoting Tesla,they really have no idea as to what there talking about  C.C

Oh,and TK,this video has your tattooed magnetic wonder on the panel lol.
What was his name again?--Snuffleupagus or something like that  :D


Brad

Graham--it is time.

Do you have time?

If so,in the following few weeks,i will put together a series of video instructions for you to follow and replicate.
The first video will be posted to you by the weekend.
You are going to need very few materials,and a free 20 odd hours.

Material list is

About 10 meters of steel packing strap-the painted stuff,about .8mm thick x 16mm wide-or there abouts.
30 meters of either .6 or .7mm enameled copper wire,and about 15 meters of .55mm
An NPN transistor rated to 12 amps or more(E.G 2n3055),a couple of diodes,an FWBR,and some wire of sorts.
Also some sheet timber or plexiglass to bolt it all on,and to make a rotor out of.
4x neo magnets about 10 to 15mm diameter,and about 15 to 25mm long--or the equivalent in square or rectangle shape.
A bearing head of some sort--one from an old VCR head is perfect for the job.

You will also need a 12v car battery you can sacrifice,as some keyhole surgery is required.

Once complete,you will need a hydrometer to measure the specific gravity of the battery fluid,and a battery analyzer--along with your standard equipment,like a DMM,and a scope if you have one.

If you are up for the task,let me know,and we will begin.
If you do take this on,you are to post your results here before i post mine--for obvious reasons.

Let me know if your in.


Brad

Is it this one, per chance?

Edit.
If it is, I do know someone that'll be very happy to see a build, he's been asking me for years!!   :)

We were thinking about using a large coil of the Green plastic coated Iron wire to form the " core " of the motor.

Hi Carroll,

I have redrawn Turion's block_diagram_like single battery setup around the battery as I understand it from Turion's earlier posts in the 3BGS thread at the other forum.  I made a single red wire connection to the battery positive and a single black wire connection to the battery negative to make it clear how Turion most probably meant wiring mainly at the left hand side of the single battery. I kindly ask you to say if it is correct or not.

Of course, I do assume Turion's original drawing (you and Dragon uploaded last week) has surely been correct for you because of your closer familiarity with the 'splitting the positive' concept Turion and Matt have based their setups, at least  this is what I think.

The reason I show my redrawn version is trying to clarify the questions Tinman and MuDped asked earlier in Reply #93, #95 and #96 two pages earlier.  And since then the questions have not been answered.  Naturally, I would welcome your wise comments on those questions.

There is no any chance for understanding a setup if the drawing of that setup is not a 100% clear for everybody, not even at wiring wise. 
Even if members here tend to abandon dealing with this setup (mainly due to the lack of clearness in the drawing), at least let us clarify what the correct wiring around the battery is  (I would certainly like to know).   8)

Notice to everybody: I do not mean this redrawn schema will make Turion's one battery setup overunity: for this to happen the 'correct' pulse motor and the 'correct' generator should still be used as Turion has been claiming.

Thanks,  Gyula

Hi Gyula,

As I have previously posted I have NOT tried this circuit.  I was not aware of it until it was posted recently on the Energetic Forum.  However this circuit seems to keep the idea of reusing the current that is being used to power the motor.  And in addition it is using the power of the motor to turn a generator which power is supplying the second boost convertor to power a load and then the power going to the load is added back to the battery.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Carroll

Hi Carroll,

Unfortunately, your answer does not help in this case. I know from Turion's and Matt's posts that the intention has always been what you answered.

If you kindly read Tinman post #95 and MuDped post #96, you understand why I redrawn the wiring at the battery: because it is misunderstandable, the coloring of the wires is unfortunately chosen. I do not think the setup should be built just to clarify the wiring around the battery, just compare the wiring of the battery in the original with my redrawn wiring at the battery.

How I see Turion's way of thinking: he created two so-called 'splitting the positive' circuits by using two boost converters with a single battery. One circuit is between the positive of the battery and the positive output of the 1st boost converter via the motor and the second is between the positive of the battery and the positive output of the 2nd boost converter via the 50 Ohm load. The negative output of the 2nd boost converter is directly connected to the negative of the battery to complete the circuit for the load because the 2nd converter has no common negative with the battery like the 1st converter has.

A notice: I still maintain what I wrote to Tinman in my post #100 at the top of the previous page: running a load which is a pulse motor between the positive input and positive output of a step up converter is not readily recommended because the load current may easily make the internal components (used between the positives of the converter) overheat and / or influence the originally intended operation of the converter. This can partially explain if such boot converter fails in this circuit unless the load (motor) current involved remain relatively low. (I do not say that a load cannot be run across the positives.)

Respectfully
Gyula

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.08.07, 14:58:47
Is it this one, per chance?

Edit.
If it is, I do know someone that'll be very happy to see a build, he's been asking me for years!!   :)

We were thinking about using a large coil of the Green plastic coated Iron wire to form the " core " of the motor.

Close Grum,but a little more simple than that  O0

The steel packing strap makes for the best core material,and easy to form a toroid  O0


Brad

Perhaps it makes slightly more sense to draw the circuit in a more conventional manner.

(I believe that the IN and OUT of these boost converters share a common Negative. So the Neg Out of BC1 isn't really not connected to anything, it is actually connected to the circuit common Negative. I think.)

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.07, 19:54:20
Hi Carroll,

I have redrawn Turion's block_diagram_like single battery setup around the battery as I understand it from Turion's earlier posts in the 3BGS thread at the other forum.  I made a single red wire connection to the battery positive and a single black wire connection to the battery negative to make it clear how Turion most probably meant wiring mainly at the left hand side of the single battery. I kindly ask you to say if it is correct or not.

Of course, I do assume Turion's original drawing (you and Dragon uploaded last week) has surely been correct for you because of your closer familiarity with the 'splitting the positive' concept Turion and Matt have based their setups, at least  this is what I think.

The reason I show my redrawn version is trying to clarify the questions Tinman and MuDped asked earlier in Reply #93, #95 and #96 two pages earlier.  And since then the questions have not been answered.  Naturally, I would welcome your wise comments on those questions.

There is no any chance for understanding a setup if the drawing of that setup is not a 100% clear for everybody, not even at wiring wise. 
Even if members here tend to abandon dealing with this setup (mainly due to the lack of clearness in the drawing), at least let us clarify what the correct wiring around the battery is  (I would certainly like to know).   8)

Notice to everybody: I do not mean this redrawn schema will make Turion's one battery setup overunity: for this to happen the 'correct' pulse motor and the 'correct' generator should still be used as Turion has been claiming.

Thanks,  Gyula

Hi Gyula

Matt and Dave are that confused over what there own setup-or should i say-which setup dose what.
First was the 3BGS setup that was suppose to deliver far more output than input.
That one cost me close to $300.00,and gave me less than 67%efficiency.
The second setup was the addition of an inverter-another $60.00 on the total.
Then came the need for the infamous !Matt motor!
That is where i put the brakes on,as i could see it was just going to be endless changes and a bottomless money pit .

Now we need a !Matt motor! (AKA-garbage bucket bathroom heater),and two boost converters,which are placed within a circuit that has two current loops in it,which provides a means for incorrect power in/out measurements-just like the boodini fan club dose with the SSG circuit.

We also now get to see the true nature of these two champions,where we once again see those that ask valid questions getting raked over the coals,and called names that we dare not even mention here.
The language Matt used toward bistander in his last video shows you the type of dropkick we are dealing with here.

I am in no way interested in anything these two have to offer-which is nothing but wasted money.

What i will be doing is making sure others know exactly what these two are like,and will be showing everyone what they really have,as they are incapable of providing any credible data of there own-even a simple task like an RPM reading seems to be beyond there capabilities.

No more BS from these two--my motor is on its way.


Bradp

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.08.08, 01:47:24
Perhaps it makes slightly more sense to draw the circuit in a more conventional manner.

(I believe that the IN and OUT of these boost converters share a common Negative. So the Neg Out of BC1 isn't really not connected to anything, it is actually connected to the circuit common Negative. I think.)

Yes,that is correct TK.

My problem with the circuit is the current loop,and which current value they are using to make there power measurements with


Brad

Matt and Dave have quoted many times that other people have replicated there 3BGS setup,and have gotten OU results.

Reading the other thread at EF,i see Carroll said he built the 3BGS system,and obtained these OU results,where more work was done than that of which the batteries could have provided.

It would be great if Carroll could provided the data obtained with those tests,so as we have someone with credibility ready to back up Matt and Daves claims.


Brad

Hey Grum

You can cast cast iron-right?

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.08.08, 01:47:24
Perhaps it makes slightly more sense to draw the circuit in a more conventional manner.

(I believe that the IN and OUT of these boost converters share a common Negative. So the Neg Out of BC1 isn't really not connected to anything, it is actually connected to the circuit common Negative. I think.)

Hi TK,

Yes, your drawing makes the setup clearer, thanks.   And the boost converter types mentioned at the EF forum they use are non isolated types i.e. their negative input and negative output share the same PCB copper area i.e. a short circuit by design.

Folks,  David made two posts on the ou forum last night in connection with his generator. The thread someone started discusses cogging torque neutralization and he chimed in:  https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg524666/#msg524666 (https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg524666/#msg524666)   

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.08, 10:25:23


Folks,  David made two posts on the ou forum last night in connection with his generator. The thread someone started discusses cogging torque neutralization and he chimed in:  https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg524666/#msg524666 (https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg524666/#msg524666)   

Gyula

Ohhhh--lunch time  ^-^

I did Call David today

it seemed his reply to Brad [at Stefan's forum] might be interpreted by some as "what no Matt motor Demmo ??"

not the case at all, Matt demmo still in the works [between running the farm ]
and Dave said once Matt gets done with his Demmo he probably won't need to do his demmo  [after he gets done moving 2-3 month window]

He REALLY doesn't have the time or the help to spend unpacking everything just for a Demmo [at this time]
I asked Dave again where he felt the energy was coming from
   he reminded me of a very technical Peer paper that is being written [along with onsite supporting testing]
at a prestigious European  university .

to be clear ...the university is using the more advanced System for the Peer paper

So to recap
Matt motor Demonstration still in the works
and Dave's Big nachines will be available to Brad [for ANY kind of testing]
once he moves and gets his shop settup [2-3 months]

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.08, 16:51:57
I did Call David today

it seemed his reply to Brad [at Stefan's forum] might be interpreted by some as "what no Matt motor Demmo ??"

not the case at all, Matt demmo still in the works [between running the farm ]
and Dave said once Matt gets done with his Demmo he probably won't need to do his demmo  [after he gets done moving 2-3 month window]

He REALLY doesn't have the time or the help to spend unpacking everything just for a Demmo [at this time]
I asked Dave again where he felt the energy was coming from
   he reminded me of a very technical Peer paper that is being written [along with onsite supporting testing]
at a prestigious European  university .

to be clear ...the university is using the more advanced System for the Peer paper

So to recap
Matt motor Demonstration still in the works
and Dave's Big nachines will be available to Brad [for ANY kind of testing]
once he moves and gets his shop settup [2-3 months]

300 watts in--1600 watts out

Brad

IMO
300 watts in and 300.1 watts out...reproducible and a peer reviewed paper ...[this is under development] ??

ticker tape parade stuff the whole 9 yards [and then some

might even be a cheeseburger or two thrown in..............

Never been shown this way .... reproducible in a scientific venue....

probably not just one mans opinion...

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.08, 23:47:42
IMO
300 watts in and 300.1 watts out...reproducible and a peer reviewed paper ...[this is under development] ??

ticker tape parade stuff the whole 9 yards [and then some

might even be a cheeseburger or two thrown in..............

Never been shown this way .... reproducible in a scientific venue....

probably not just one mans opinion...

Well i showed a 12%+ gain in the very simple,cheap and easy to replicate cap to cap transfer system,time and time again,using very accurate data logging methods,and no one gave a rats ass.

People want huge rotating machines,that are expensive and time consuming to build-there just not interested in something so simple and cheap.
This is why i no longer post anymore about my cap to cap transfer results.

Here is what i see happening.
Matts two coiler won't  work,and he will then say that you need Daves big generator to get OU.
This means 2 to 3 months for the two of them to come up with an escape plan to showing Daves big gen pumping out 1600 watts with just 300 watts input.

Lets see what happens

Brad

I believe that Rats ass scenario was more a potential for a math error [your values were based on a math equation??

I believe if you were playing with water or ...anything ....on a weight measuring scale

and you said I have 100 lbs

and now I have 112 lbs

its either Magic?
or .........something never seen before

I also happen to believe that most are quite intrigued by your energy transfer experiments
and as I recall ,it was suggested a method to empirically test this ??
not just mathematically but analogous to the weight scale example above.

well if anybody here can turn 1.12 into a much greater gain
you are certainly that guy,
but I am quite certain ...in this house there are quite a few fellows who could also do this.


a self runner would make the measuring point mute

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.09, 03:08:04
(snip)
Here is what i see happening.
Matts two coiler won't  work,and he will then say that you need Daves big generator to get OU.
This means 2 to 3 months for the two of them to come up with an escape plan to showing Daves big gen pumping out 1600 watts with just 300 watts input.

Lets see what happens

Brad

Don't you know already? They'll pull out of the demo because of criticism from skeptics. But first there will probably be a cycle or two of "it broke and we are waiting for parts" and "the basement flooded so maybe next week" and such like.

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.09, 06:52:48

a self runner would make the measuring point mute

Then a self runner you shall have.

Myself and Graham are working on that now.
It also looks like Ronee is on board,so expect to see a well built machine or two soon.

Im about to brave the cold wet night,and hit the workshop,as there is something i need you all to see.
It's been running for 22hours 18 minutes from the time of this post.

Be back later on tonight.


Brad

Oh P.S
If some one on that other forum some how gets a hold of this(the machine design),you will be getting in your Datsun,and going over there to sort them out.

I better get a box of magnums for this one Chet.

Well
selling crumbs , "Secret" books or whatever for personal gain ?
and never showing a proper test to validate it ?

there were some very heavy Knocks on Dave's door by such persons [a Key member of the secret bookselling crew]
on Matts door too .....

the Knocks were so hard that Dave just gave away this design [since a "crew" member saw it all
anyway]

however the "other design" which evolved from this....
thats being done thru a MAJOR highly regarded university for peer review.

I was once told years ago by a very feisty fellow ,open sourcing a free energy tech would be like
giving it to your worst enemy...

in this house ...Peter's house  ,  we work solely for open source

because its the right thing to do ...and we are men of like mind ...

** and I know you too are one of those men , and the "how too" of open sourcing your tech is up to you.

that bein said....I'd have to push the old datsun roadster ATM
But the 59 Fiat 500 Nuova is warming up in the garage...

nothing quite as menacing as that pulling up ....[would probably end up pushing that too]

better ask the Misses if I can borrow her subaru..... :-[

Edit
I added this bit while you were typing ** [** above and below]
--------------------------------
**But yes Brad...
I would drive as far as there is land in front of me .......certain things I just could not stomach.

stealing this for personal gain .....

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.09, 12:19:36
Well
selling crumbs , "Secret" books or whatever for personal gain ?
and never showing a proper test to validate it ?

there were some very heavy Knocks on Dave's door by such persons [a Key member of the secret bookselling crew]
on Matts door too .....

the Knocks were so hard that Dave just gave away this design [since a "crew" member saw it all
anyway]

however the "other design" which evolved from this....
thats being done thru a MAJOR highly regarded university for peer review.

I was once told years ago by a very feisty fellow ,open sourcing a free energy tech would be like
giving it to your worst enemy...

in this house ...Peter's house  ,  we work solely for open source

because its the right thing to do ...and we are men of like mind ...

that bein said....I'd have to push the old datsun roadster ATM
But the 59 Fiat 500 Nuova is warming up in the garage...

nothing quite as menacing as that pulling up ....[would probably end up pushing that too]

better ask the Misses if I can borrow here subaru..... :-[

I know another man who gave his work to the world,and died a broke lonely man
Tesla.

Tinsel
Quote

Don't you know already? They'll pull out of the demo because of criticism from skeptics.
end quote
---------------------------------------------------------------
push hard enuff and I am certain you will see that prophesy fullfilled at Stefan's forum

Dave respects Brad as a replicator and will assist him as he agreed to before your contributions there.

nothing has changed ,  Brad is investing HIS time and money for the benefit of the community
and hopefully a better understanding of the claim.


nothing but gratitude here

Wait... I'm confused.

Quotein this house ...Peter's house  ,  we work solely for open source

because its the right thing to do ...and we are men of like mind ...

... but...

QuoteIf some one on that other forum some how gets a hold of this(the machine design),you will be getting in your Datsun,and going over there to sort them out.

Open source, or not open source? A forum with threads that not everyone can read, working solely for open source? Talking about secret projects on threads that the public _can_ see, like this one?

Don't get me wrong, I love this place and consider everyone here my friends. But maybe we should decide just what we really mean by "open source"... since it seems to be more of an "open sore" to some people. Personally I think teasing is a form of bullying and I don't respond well to it.

let me ask you a question

If you actually decided to do a replication of something you felt interested you
and you were going to work with the claimant to replicate this Device

and every time you went back to the thread that you just ordered parts for with your hard earned money and dedicated huge blocks of your hard to get time...
there were ten pages of fights and interactions from persons who had not made your commitment

and were annoying the claimant until he left the forum .

maybe 100 times this has happened at Stefan's
maybe 1000 times ...[is that OU yet]

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

trying to discuss things in a place where there are no pages of fights or interruptions with a group of people who have agreed to assist the claimant by investing ...with Their time and money [after doing their own diligence for the project??
in a place which is dedicated to open source ?

nothin but gratitude here

and then to consider the personal experiences of members here who have had visits and computer /phone attacks /interruptions as well as packages between members interrupted [DUT disassembled and left in pieces] and then actual  break ins  with entire Lab equipment and device removed [and nothing else...last few weeks]??

it is not taunting or bullying....
it is survival Mode....

and that is not just one mans opinion.

Chet

I for one, don't know about others, have decided to work quietly with maybe just one or two people in the shadows atm. I do not have a lot of money to put into projects, now I am replacing slowly things lost, it's not going to stop me, I think I'm so close now.

When it is all worked out and running I will put it in the public domain.

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.09, 15:47:51
let me ask you a question

If you actually decided to do a replication of something you felt interested you
and you were going to work with the claimant to replicate this Device

and every time you went back to the thread that you just ordered parts for with your hard earned money and dedicated huge blocks of your hard to get time...
there were ten pages of fights and interactions from persons who had not made your commitment

and were annoying the claimant until he left the forum .

maybe 100 times this has happened at Stefan's
maybe 1000 times ...[is that OU yet]

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

trying to discuss things in a place where there are no pages of fights or interruptions with a group of people who have agreed to assist the claimant by investing ...with Their time and money [after doing their own diligence for the project??
in a place which is dedicated to open source ?

nothin but gratitude here

and then to consider the personal experiences of members here who have had visits and computer /phone attacks /interruptions as well as packages between members interrupted [DUT disassembled and left in pieces] and then actual  break ins  with entire Lab equipment and device removed [and nothing else...last few weeks]??

it is not taunting or bullying....
it is survival Mode....

and that is not just one mans opinion.

It sounds like you are trying to blame me, or skeptics in general, for those people "leaving the forum" with their unsupported claims and uncooperative attitudes. I reject that, totally. No skeptic on some forum is going to prevent anyone who actually has what they claim from changing the world and profitting personally from it. No way. Blame a skeptic? That just means the claimant can't put his data where his mouth is, so to speak.

It also sounds like you are saying that there are Evil Forces out there who break into certified mail packages and take things apart (but don't steal them) and who break into labs and shops and even computers and phones (but stopped doing that, thank goodness.). SO maybe we had better just stop all this altogether, if those evil forces are monitoring the forums (and of course they can read the secret threads). We don't want anyone to get tossed into some extraordinary rendition site, or forced to work for the Montenegran military or something.

Come on Chet... I think your brain may be getting soft.


Besides, I've provided Dave with the perfect excuse for not being able to show his claimed COP 5+ electrical device. The Skeptics killed it !!

that's not the half of it

and its not really a topic which is discussed here

Mush works for me

Always let the duck take flight before trying to shoot it down  :D

this axel fellow posted a vid at energetic
not sure if non members can see it
or if non members would want to see it........ :-\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CImNAp2iFJQ&feature=youtu.be

also Brad
there is talk of erased posts or modified posts with no "foot print"
something only Administrators can do at that forum
members Edits are noted/tagged as edited immediately for all time.
that did not happen when member Bi allegedly altered his now famous comments.



several persons did read these now modified without a trace posts

I was told this is what led to the sudden changes over there [and all the nasty talk .

some feel the Bi person has strong connections at that forum ?

admin [and associates] at that forum is very suspect in the eyes of Dave or Matt
due to things which have happened this last year [long business visits [attempting to make deals or ??]  to both Matt and Dave ......] .

I write these things only because the vitriol Matt shows towards this person Bi seems so
baseless ,I never agree with this type of behavior , however I have not lived in Matts shoes either.

That is the reason I shared these few things , for perspective .


that is all I will write about that....

I will type no more words on that topic ...

Hi Chet,

As per my observations, everybody can erase his entire post at EF so that other members will not see it again.  This has been observed several times during the years, Matt has done so quite a few times when he changed his mind not to share something or what he wrote was very rude.  It is strange why the Admin tolerate such behaviour when forum rules have obviously been violated, members have been insulted or hurt.  Other members at EF have been banned for much less during the years,  not even violating any forum rules, they have been just better technically. Of course, there were members who simply deserved being banned.

Regarding Bi, he did not change his posts at all, especially the one on which Matt accused him of rewriting it: another member, perhaps just axel quoted Bi's full post in question shortly after Bi posted it and the two texts are identical. 
I agree that most of the modifications or deletings by Matt in his own posts and  / or making several of his video links private during the years may have been for fear of being 'robbed by the gods' so to speak.  The other side of the coin may be: Matt and Turion and the few following them have kept the forum 'alive'  i.e. made the traffic. 

Gyula

Gyula
It is Not about removing ,yes that is no issue removing HOWEVER
going back and changing a post??

I have seen most forums have a limit before an edit notice pops up

it is only seconds long At EF,[it is impossible for a member to edit unnoticed  there after those few seconds]  ...the edit unnoticed time is several minutes here ,and hours long at Stefan's

there are apparently a half dozen persons who saw this miraculous edit,   way past the limit time ??

I was not one of them,and this is the real issue at that forum ATM [one of their reasons for attacking]
it will most likely come to light over there ,as Matt has written it many times with his Admin reference ?
Again
I Did not see this miraculous edit .

and they are suspicious now and feel Bi has close ties to Admin due to this ability.

Okay, now I understand what you mean. 17 minutes passed after a member altrez (not axel as I wrote above) quoted Bi's full text, so in case Bi indeed changed his text within the "edit unnoticed time" window, then it had no trace unless someone made a snapshot from his monitor screen before Bi changed it (if he changed it, that is).

I did not see Bi's original text either but I do not think he edited it within the time window.
On Matt's writing the Admin word or Admin privileges: I am not aware of Bi's having any Admin possibilities at EF, maybe he has but I do not think so.  But Matt may have meant that either the Admin did the change in Bi's original text without leaving any trace of modifying it or Matt simply labeled Bi as Admin (posts 4133 and 4136), to be able to change his posts without any trace. 

I think this came when Bi commented Tinman's video on the Matt motor because Turion brought that video up, denauncing it. And Bi dared to write again the motor did not perform more out than in, this again started a debate.  And it ended when Bi wrote this: "Show me solid proof or convincing evidence of those claims or admit they are false claims, and I'll get out of here."  Matt and Dave immediatly admitted they had lied all the time so that Bi should keep his word and leave the thread (or perhaps the forum) that was their sole intention.

Gyula

I always liked Bi ,and honestly
have never had any issue with anything I have read

except
admit these are false claims.

I always hear
admit your lying when I see someone write that type of sentence to another.

and if they were on the street where I come from ,and did this infront of a crowd ??

admit your lying ...ends up with a knuckle sandwich and a big dust up goes down...
--------------------------------------------

I have to admit ,these types of things are right next to having my fingernails pulled out
on my list of "things I don't like to do"


I loathe this stuff

I think I read here a couple of days ago that someone wanted my opinion about Dave and Matt and their claims.  If I am wrong about that then don't bother to read the following.  I will try to give a brief history of my involvement with them.

A few years ago I got involved with the Tesla Switch thread on the Energetic Forum.  From that involvement with Matt I decided to go to the first Energy Conference in Idaho.  On the plane ride out there I met Matt who was seated right across the aisle from me.  I saw some interesting things there like the giant Ferris Wheel the name that can't be mentioned demoed there.  I also heard some very ridiculous claims made by the great Dr. of motors and his sidekick Erron.  I realized then that it was mostly a money making plan and not really serious about free or alternative energy.  I never went back.

After that conference I was invited by Matt to look at the thread by David Bowling about his accidental discovery of the never ending power of a certain type of dead battery.  For the next couple of years we tried everything we could think of to duplicate whatever was happening in those special batteries.  We all spent many dollars and time buying junk batteries from the salvage yards trying to find any that had that special whatever it was that made them act like that.  We had a very few successes and many many failures.  I was lucky enough to find one battery with the special properties.  When I hooked it up to the 3 battery generating system it ran a 400 watt inverter off the bad battery for over 8 hours and the primary batteries went up slightly in voltage during that time.  The inverter was powering a 100 watt incandescent bulb for that entire time.  There was a motor connected from the primary batteries to the 3 battery that was also running at that time.  But I don't think it was powering any load.  All the power for the inverter was apparently coming from the 3rd "special" dead battery even though a motor was being turned by the voltage from the primary batteries.  Seeing that with my own eyes convinced me that Dave and Matt did know something about what they were talking about.  However we were never able to determine what made the proper " dead" battery or how to duplicate it.  So we finally gave up on that idea.

What we had discovered during all the testing though was that the basic 3 BGS did give us the ability to run loads for much longer than if they were run just straight off the batteries.  So with Matt leading the way for most of the journey he decided to design a change in a motor that would pulse battery 3 instead of supplying a steady voltage and current to it.  So that was the idea behind the rewound Matt motor.  And since that time I have seen commercially available battery chargers that also use pulse charging.  So the idea was valid.  As I have mentioned before Dave is electronically challenged.  This motor was a way for him to pulse charge the 3rd battery without burning out any electronics.  It also gave him a way to power a generator.

At this stage Matt and Dave started looking for an efficient generating system.  Dave's theory was that with the 3BGS system recovering most of the power being used to turn the motor, if we could get an efficient generating system we might be able to get it over the top and reach overunity.  One of the first things we discovered was that if we built a machine capable of generating some real power the magnetic cogging became a problem.

Dave came up with a way to overcome that.  I can now share that as they have decided to make that public.  Up til a few weeks ago I did not feel free to share that information.  Dave wondered if we could use another set of magnets to offset the attraction of the main magnets to the cores.  Matt designed a small test machine.  He machined it out and sent it to me to experiment with as at that time he and Dave were both very busy.  I assembled it and started tuning it and found the idea of Dave's worked like a charm.  With no load on the coils I could get the current draw down to almost nothing by carefully adjusting the opposing magnets.  Dave went on to try several different configurations of the opposing magnets idea until he settled on what he felt was the best design.

At this time I have NOT tested Dave's claim that he has a generator that speeds up under load.  I do know that he has measured the current draw on the motor with no coils or magnets on the rotor to give him a base no load current draw and speed.  Then when he adds the magnets and coils and balances the magnetic cogging the the current draw is a little higher.  And when he actually puts a load to the generator the current draw goes BELOW the base draw when there were no magnets or coils.  And of course it speeds up under load.

So what do I really KNOW about Dave and Matt's work.  I know from my own testing that the 3BGS gives extended run times as compared to running the same load straight off the battery.  I know from my own testing that using the Matt modified motor does give increased charging to the 3rd battery.  I know from my own testing that the magnetic cogging can be solved with opposing magnets.  I know although it is a rather moot point that if you can get a special "dead" battery you will see something amazing.  However as soon as you turn it off the magic is gone.  You can only have one shot at it.  It seems it will run for a very long time until you stop it.  Dave's first one ran for weeks until he took it apart to show a patent attorney and it never ran again.  Mine ran for over 8 hours until I turned it off to never run like that again.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Hi Carroll,

Thanks for your opinion on and describing your involvement with Dave and Matt and the 3BGS setup.

For me the generator is the interesting 'component' in the setup. You wrote: "With no load on the coils I could get the current draw down to almost nothing by carefully adjusting the opposing magnets."

Can you share now whether adding real load across the coils, normal Lenz law started to ruin the magnetic balance and the input current to the prime mover increased because of that?

(I do not mean yet the introduction of utilizing the increase of coils self capacitance as per Tesla Coil for Electromagnets patent Dave mentioned, resulting in the acceleration of the rotor under load.
All I am curious at the moment is whether Lenz law tends to ruin the balance or the balance is load dependent or combining the coils with the increase of their self capacitance the situation improves Lenz law wise.

One more thing if I may? Dave mentioned another patent on magnetic repulsion but he has not found it: do you know that patent number?

Thanks, 
Gyula

Hi Gyula,

I don't know if adding a load ruined the magnetic balance or it was just normal Lenz law effect.  I do know the rotor slowed down and the current draw went up when  I started drawing power from the coils.  These were just normal coils with nothing special about them.  The whole test was to see if we could eliminate the cogging effect of the attraction of the magnets to the cores and that was successful.

I did not know there was a patent on the magnetic repulsion to offset the attraction until Dave posted that a few days ago.  I know he thought he could patent that idea but apparently the patent search showed prior art so he decided to share what he knew.  So I do not know the patent number.

Take care,
Carroll

My bench will be ready in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to working on this one. Are there any demos left online ?

Quote from: CITFTA on 2018.08.10, 21:00:00


I do know that he has measured the current draw on the motor with no coils or magnets on the rotor to give him a base no load current draw and speed.  Then when he adds the magnets and coils and balances the magnetic cogging the the current draw is a little higher.  And when he actually puts a load to the generator the current draw goes BELOW the base draw when there were no magnets or coils.  And of course it speeds up under load.


Respectfully,
Carroll

Carroll

Have you seen this with your own eyes,or are you taking Daves word for it?

If the highlighted is true,then this is a clear sign of OU,as there is no way the current draw can be less than  what the motor draws alone unless there is a true motoring action coming from the generator it self.

I guess the only way i will know,is to build one myself.
It will have to be scaled,as the largest neo's i have are 19mm round x 25mm long.

The one bit of info i need is--what is the core material used for the coils?.


Brad

Quote from: JimBoot on 2018.08.11, 00:29:40
My bench will be ready in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to working on this one. Are there any demos left online ?

Jim ya old tax dodger--how ya been?.

Thanks Carroll for the most interesting account of your
experience with the phenomenon.

Quote from: Carroll
I know although it is a rather moot point that if you can get
a special "dead" battery you will see something amazing.
However as soon as you turn it off the magic is gone.  You
can only have one shot at it.  It seems it will run for a very
long time until you stop it.  Dave's first one ran for weeks
until he took it apart to show a patent attorney and it never
ran again.  Mine ran for over 8 hours until I turned it off to
never run like that again.

Sulfation of batteries is a mysterious thing.  I've noticed that
some sulfated batteries recover very quickly and return to
normal charge/discharge characteristics with abundant capacity.
The vast majority of sulfated batteries recover very slowly,
however, and many of those seem to have permanently lost
capacity and may only deliver 50% or less of their normal
capacity.  There must be a reasonable explanation for what
you've described and I'm wondering if it's somehow related
to the nature of sulfation.

This is one of the best article's i have found on lead acid batteries,how they work,and the sulphation effect.

https://www.batterystuff.com/kb/articles/battery-articles/secret-workings-of-a-lead-acid-battery.html

My take with these !special! batteries,is that the charge is actually locked into the oxides within the plates by sulphation it self. This would make the battery appear to be dead when a large current cannot be delivered,due to very little plate surface,but where a small current draw could be had for days. This small current draw would slowly desulphate the plates,which would appear to show the battery putting out more power as time go's on.

With one of these batteries in this condition used in the 3 battery system,it would appear that more and more power was being produced by the system,without that power being taken out of the two good batteries in the system.
The 3 battery system would then appear to deliver far more power than the two good batteries could supply.
The simple answer is--the energy is simply locked away in the third bad (special) battery,and the !special! battery is simply giving up that !hard to get to! stored energy that is locked away behind the sulphate insulation curtain that is slowly dissolving over time. 

I have one of these !special! batteries. It is an 18 Amp hour SLA.
I can apply a load that draws a good 1 amp--the voltage drops upon connection of the load,and then i can watch the voltage rise up as much as 1 volt over a period of about an hour.
So the effect is,i can draw 1 amp for 1 hour(1 amp hour),and the battery appears to have more stored energy at the end of that hour under load,than what i started with before applying the load--a self charging battery  O0

I suspect that this is what the guys were seeing with there 3 battery systems--you simply let the stored charge escape jail  ;)


Brad

Hi Carroll,

Thanks for your answers.

I see this as follows: the counter fields of the coils (by the load current) versus the balanced magnets tend to retard (slow down) the rotor, this is normal Lenz law and at the same time this counter field also causes a certain unbalance for the balanced magnetic setup.  Surely this latter can be remedied to a certain degree by readjusting the magnet positions to match them for the load, this may be a certain trade-off.  And surely further 'tricks' like Dave included in his description are needed to get overunity.

Gyula

Hi Gyula.

Are you describing " armature reaction " ?

In the very old days, even before me, they used to have adjustable brushgear to reduce arcing at the commutator under load conditions. Later machines were fitted with " interpoles " these coils carried the load current and effectively " straightened " the main lines of magnetic flux.

Cheers Graham.

Hi Graham,

Yes, a kind of.  In a generator Dave described I think the coil field that appears in the moment the load current is drawn, invariably influences the originally balanced magnetic field of the setup with which the minimal current draw of the prime mover have already been established, i.e. cogging between relatively huge attract forces has been minimized by equally huge repel forces. 

Now, if you can adjust the position of the magnets while a certain amount of load current is drawn, then the cogging could also be minimized I believe, maybe to a similar input current draw than earlier with the no load case.  But this may involve a certain, limited output current range because too big load current would unbalance the fields, causing an increase in cogging. 
You mention coils that created 'interpoles': I can imagine the use of such as a means of dynamically adapting the load current to the minimized cogging operation.

However, Dave has not referred to using such extra coils, maybe they are not needed at all because of his multifilar generator coils: he wrote his rotor speeds up under load above a certain RPM the prime mover brings the rotor up,  this may also compensate for Lenz law which should normally be also present.  Maybe such dream has become reality... 8)

Gyula

Adding magnets to eliminate cogging is a very old idea. I remember seeing patents to this effect many decades ago and I'm sure the method goes back much further as can be found in a patent search.

While cogging can be minimised, it does not (to my knowledge)  negate the LENZ effect in high speed operation.

just google "patent elimination of cogging in motor generator"

IMHO based on testing,  in a well designed motor or generator with appropriate return magnetic structure, cogging does not increase input power requirement because the force spent entering the cog zone is returned to the rotor on the way out of the cog zone.

Dear Ion,

Dave mentioned that Lenz law is negated as per written in the Coil for electromagnets Tesla patent and this is why he uses the multifilar generator coils.  Only measurements can tell whether this is so or not.  I have not read from him that cogging compensation involves negating Lenz law. 
Thanks for the patent search.

Gyula

PS  There is the https://tinyurl.com/ (https://tinyurl.com/)  freely usable site for making very long url addresses much shorter.  This is what can become from your above link:  https://tinyurl.com/y6usrqac (https://tinyurl.com/y6usrqac)   
Feel free replacing the long url in your post and the formatting of the post will be ok.

Dear Gyula

As you already know, the negation of Lenz's law would be candidate for Nobel prize in electrodynamics/physics and would be a game changer revolutionizing energy production.

I am not familiar with the Tesla claim (if it exists) or why it has not heretofore been exploited.

This tale has a lot of drama emerging so we will need to be patient, wait till that stuff dies down and see where it goes. Large claims require suitable proofs.

Thanks for the tool.

regards

Dear Ion,

I simply repeated what Dave wrote at the other two forums recently, that were his words. This is why I mentioned measurements.
Sorry if I sounded to fully endorse his opinion. 

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.11, 16:47:22
Dear Ion,

I simply repeated what Dave wrote at the other two forums recently, that were his words. This is why I mentioned measurements.
Sorry if I sounded to fully endorse his opinion. 

Gyula

Dear Gyula

No problem, I was not challenging your post, and I understand that you were not fully endorsing his opinion. My reply was just meant to be a general reality check for all of us (myself included) so we don't underestimate the magnitude of the claim. I agree, good measurements will be telling.

kind regards

TinMan,

Your analysis makes sense to me.  When the sulfation is quite
fresh and nearly amorphous (not yet hardened) it is easily reversed
and the energy stored within the plates becomes available.

Thanks for the link.  Good article.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.08.11, 21:32:28
TinMan,

Your analysis makes sense to me.  When the sulfation is quite
fresh and nearly amorphous (not yet hardened) it is easily reversed
and the energy stored within the plates becomes available.

Thanks for the link.  Good article.

Yes, good article

This effect is well known in battery engineering, and many of us that have over many years used LA  batteries e.g. in cars and electric vehicles are quite aware of it, and why we have to turn a  jaundiced eye towards those that watch seemingly dead batteries miraculously recover when hooked to their "special motors".  Better to use a quality capacitor in shorter term testing if OU is suspected. It is notoriously tricky to predict the  performance of LA batteries when sulphation and temperature effects come into play.

Because I purchased a E15 GE Electric Tractor many years ago I felt it was a good idea to obtain a copy of "Secrets Of Lead Acid Batteries" by Thomas J. Lindsay. It is a clearly written pamphlet of 44 pages that includes a section on types of sulphation on pages 27 and 28. Highly recommended.

I also was lucky to inherit some good textbooks and notes on battery design and manufacturing from a friend who worked in R&D at a local LA battery manufacturer after he retired, however the internet can be your friend.

i should add
we always had an open invitation to go see and witness Daves unit running.

I am certain, [when he gets settled in at his new place] that invitation is still open.
he has offered at least a half dozen times to allow Steve to come and see.

Quote from: ion on 2018.08.11, 15:30:13
Adding magnets to eliminate cogging is a very old idea. I remember seeing patents to this effect many decades ago and I'm sure the method goes back much further as can be found in a patent search.

While cogging can be minimised, it does not (to my knowledge)  negate the LENZ effect in high speed operation.

just google "patent elimination of cogging in motor generator"

IMHO based on testing,  in a well designed motor or generator with appropriate return magnetic structure, cogging does not increase input power requirement because the force spent entering the cog zone is returned to the rotor on the way out of the cog zone.

The only way to truly eliminate all cogging-->

First i took a large ferrite toroid.
Then wound 220 turns of .55mm copper wire on every quarter of the toroid,so as we have 4 separate coils.
Next i fitted a diametrically magnetised cylinder magnet to the motor shaft,and fixed the motor to the carrier frame.
Then add a FWBR to every coil.

With this setup,every time you place a load on one coil,it increases the output of the other coils.
IOW,one coil loaded along puts out very little power. If a load is then placed on a second coil,the output of the first increases by a factor of 10. This continues until all 4 coils are loaded.

The odd bit comes when the last coil is loaded.
This is when all 4 coils output the most power for RPM of the rotor magnet,but when the last coil is loaded,the P/in to the prime mover drops to nearly half  :o
So what happens when that last coil is loaded?--anyone know what might be going on here?

I did not expect the efficiency of this generator to be that good.
Although it took me near 2 hours to wind the coils around the core,they are still pretty rough,even though i tried as hard as i could to keep them wound neatly.
But even so,the efficiency is calculated to be 86% with pure resistive loads placed on the coils(10 ohm resistors across each coil).

Anyway,my fun for the day.


Brad

Hi Brad,

I think when the 4th coil is also loaded, the magnetic asymmetry caused by the previous 3 coils gets balanced and the rotor magnet can see real symmetry flux wise only then.  On asymmetry I mean that the counter flux caused by the first 3 coils leaves a 'gap'  where the magnet may get stronger attracted then to the other parts of the toroid and the 'gap' disappears when the 4th counter flux appears by the 4th load.
Maybe this could be tested I am not sure though when you load only 2 opposite coils, say, the ones at 12 and 6 or at 9 and 3 o'clock positions.

Gyula

Good morning Brad.

Is your latest " creation " a two magnet version of the Tesla patent drawing I posted here?

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3649.msg69015#msg69015

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.08.12, 10:25:36
Good morning Brad.

Is your latest " creation " a two magnet version of the Tesla patent drawing I posted here?

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3649.msg69015#msg69015

Cheers Grum.

The one above is just 4 coils on a toroid,with a diametrically magnetized magnet on the motor shaft
Standard induction stuff.

Oh-but absolutely cogless  O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.12, 10:35:12
The one above is just 4 coils on a toroid,with a diametrically magnetized magnet on the motor shaft
Standard induction stuff.

Oh-but absolutely cogless  O0

Looks like a Gramme ring linked only by the rectifiers.   Would it be more effective to link the coil ends to form a closed loop then use these connections to tap output with your rectifiers ?   It seems your current output would increase as well as keeping the system balanced...

Interesting build !   I've built a couple gramme rings and may still have one laying around... your having to much fun ! 

Gramme's patent was a way to cure a problem when a generator was connected to a motor, more so when the motor was relieved of its load suddenly the feedback would tend to destroy either motor or generator.    Gramme stated that " the reaction of current upon itself is more energetic than that which created it"   https://patents.google.com/patent/US269281A/en?oq=us269281 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US269281A/en?oq=us269281)

Ed

Quote from: Dragon on 2018.08.12, 12:37:13
Looks like a Gramme ring linked only by the rectifiers.   Would it be more effective to link the coil ends to form a closed loop then use these connections to tap output with your rectifiers ?   It seems your current output would increase as well as keeping the system balanced...

Interesting build !   I've built a couple gramme rings and may still have one laying around... your having to much fun ! 

Gramme's patent was a way to cure a problem when a generator was connected to a motor, more so when the motor was relieved of its load suddenly the feedback would tend to destroy either motor or generator.    Gramme stated that " the reaction of current upon itself is more energetic than that which created it"   https://patents.google.com/patent/US269281A/en?oq=us269281 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US269281A/en?oq=us269281)

Ed

Yes,the next step is to hook all coils up in series-phase correct,and then rectify.
I only did it this way first so as i could see what happens as each coil was loaded individually.


Brad

Hi Brad,

An addition to my above reply #186, I think of toroidal core saturation when I mention 'gap': the core becomes less saturated under the unloaded 4th coil so the permeability under the 4th coil remains higher than under the rest hence the magnet attraction to the core section under the 4th unloaded coil becomes stronger, this causes an unusual 'cogging' that manifests in higher current draw.

There is a similar possibility to explain the current draw reduction: it is also due to core saturation when the 4th coil is loaded the overall permeability of the toroidal core becomes much less, hence the overall attract force between the magnet and the core becomes less than in the unsaturated case.  Less attract force even if it is equal radially all around causes less drag for the prime mover.

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.12, 14:49:11
Hi Brad,

An addition to my above reply #186, I think of toroidal core saturation when I mention 'gap': the core becomes less saturated under the unloaded 4th coil so the permeability under the 4th coil remains higher than under the rest hence the magnet attraction to the core section under the 4th unloaded coil becomes stronger, this causes an unusual 'cogging' that manifests in higher current draw.

There is a similar possibility to explain the current draw reduction: it is also due to core saturation when the 4th coil is loaded the overall permeability of the toroidal core becomes much less, hence the overall attract force between the magnet and the core becomes less than in the unsaturated case.  Less attract force even if it is equal radially all around causes less drag for the prime mover.

Gyula

Hi Gyula

The magnet im using is a (quite weak) ferrite magnet,and the core is a rather large ferrite core.

When i look at a similar tape wound core for 240v/ac input,and look at the loads pulled from the secondaries,i just dont see enough power being transformed here to cause saturation.

What i do see is the same effect as my LAG uses to opperate,where the coils them self are inducing there magnetic fields into the one either side. I see bucking fields st work here,which are out of phase to that of the rotor magnet.

I will set up a sense coil,so as we can get some form of timing artangement going here.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.12, 13:12:34
Yes,the next step is to hook all coils up in series-phase correct,and then rectify.
I only did it this way first so as i could see what happens as each coil was loaded individually.


Brad

I thought you'd see the prime mover P/in increase if they were hooked in series? Have you tried without a load and just shorting individual coils? It reminds me of this shorted coil demo. https://youtu.be/YUoyuiQTrRA

damn I need a bench.

The discussion goes weird once again. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-38.html#post312390)

Dave responds strangely to a request for evidence.

New guy NROC comes across as a cheerleader for
the proponents.

Bistander attempts to regain focus in the discussion.

The Drama is fascinating to observe.  It continues to
look like naught more than a game.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.08.15, 00:25:39
The discussion goes weird once again. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-38.html#post312390)

Dave responds strangely to a request for evidence.

New guy NROC comes across as a cheerleader for
the proponents.

Bistander attempts to regain focus in the discussion.

The Drama is fascinating to observe.  It continues to
look like naught more than a game.

Lol
Better than days of our lives.


Brad

The venom (some would call it hate) (http://www.energeticforum.com/312515-post4183.html) just never ends
does it?

Apparently Bistander has been banned.

As is the fate of those who know more and ask
the difficult questions.

One can only wonder when the demonstration of the
generator to offer proof will take place.  It seems to
have been delayed for some reason/s.

Hi muDped,

No he was not banned. The "deal" he offered was he leaves the 3BGS thread if either they demonstrate correct OU measurements or they admit they had lied. Well, they immediately declared they lied i.e.no OU.  So Bistander moved out from that thread. He mainly posts here now:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-39.html#post312417 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-39.html#post312417)

By the way, it seems that there are different forum rules valid for Matt only, by which he can freely offend any members over there. Very unfortunate. 

Gyula

Thanks Gyula for the update.

Agreed.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.08.21, 23:06:01
Thanks Gyula for the update.

Agreed.

So what happened to Matts big ou generator he was going to show over a week ago?

Things never turned out the way he though is my guess.
Cant show a device that dosnt deliver what he promised it would  C.C

Could this be a Swan Song? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-142.html#post313851)  With some very interesting inter-action.

The Recuperative Powers of the Lead Acid Battery have fooled many.

And of course, the batteries must be BIG batteries.

Oh well, it was not entirely an exercise in futility.  Some have learned
a great deal about the realities of Free Energy.

I guess I'll get in that line to have my nose rubbed too.

Ha!, He or she has never had burnt fingers.
Now why didn't I sign up to that forum? Must be the nose rubbing lol.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.10.21, 23:58:03
Could this be a Swan Song? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-142.html#post313851)  With some very interesting inter-action.

The Recuperative Powers of the Lead Acid Battery have fooled many.

And of course, the batteries must be BIG batteries.

Oh well, it was not entirely an exercise in futility.  Some have learned
a great deal about the realities of Free Energy.

I guess I'll get in that line to have my nose rubbed too.

And there is the big exit we all knew was coming.

Quote from Turion-->Never run a load unless it is between two potentials.

???  ???  ???
Can you run a load that is not between two potentials that are different in value  :D

Well that sums it all up,and shows the true nature and knowledge base of Dave and Matt.
Fakes from the start, liars at the end,and braindead inbetween.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.10.23, 14:42:19
And there is the big exit we all knew was coming.

Quote from Turion-->Never run a load unless it is between two potentials.

???  ???  ???
Can you run a load that is not between two potentials that are different in value  :D

What is the context? I suspect that he might mean that one should have a load connected to a system which is generating. (A bit like, in Hi-Fi systems, the importance of having a speaker connected to an amplifier before you switch it on). He's no fool.

Quote from: Paul-R
He's no fool.

With reference to the handle "Turion?"

I suppose that possibility is subject to debate.

However, there is a profound lack of technical knowledge
and ability to perform experiments safely, coupled with other
unsavory behavioral tactics.

Truth has a unique talent for squeezing its way out of even
the most tightly bound boxes.

The discussion now surges forward into LaLa Land.

The last refuge of a scoundrel.

What 'they' have shown is that a Regenerative Loop
with Pulsed Loop Current applied to the miraculous
Lead-Acid Battery is capable of short term apparent
gains in power.  What is lacking is an in-depth analysis
of where the anomalous power originates from.

But then TinMan has already provided that analysis.

Are the 'inventors' of the circuit able to demonstrate
any apparent power gains without the Lead-Acid
Batteries?  There is a reason of course that BIG
Batteries are a necessity.  Critical Thinking Mandatory.

So the illusion goes on...

Turion offers an explanation which is worth a read. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-40.html#post314048)

It's very clear that he is in the beginning stage of a
journey of learning which will lead to a more accurate
comprehension of that which he seeks.  It is so easy
to deceive ourselves about what we 'see' while in that
early state of comprehension.

I sincerely hope that he continues with his efforts to
learn and comprehend.

Those who descend upon his explanation in an effort
to reveal confusion and to lend clarity need not be
necessarily thought of as vultures.  But of course it
can be a painful process to admit error.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.10.25, 19:48:16
Turion offers an explanation which is worth a read. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-40.html#post314048)

It's very clear that he is in the beginning stage of a
journey of learning which will lead to a more accurate
comprehension of that which he seeks.  It is so easy
to deceive ourselves about what we 'see' while in that
early state of comprehension.

I sincerely hope that he continues with his efforts to
learn and comprehend.

Those who descend upon his explanation in an effort
to reveal confusion and to lend clarity need not be
necessarily thought of as vultures.  But of course it
can be a painful process to admit error.

Well,it is clear that he)Turion) dose not understand batteries,and chemical energy.
Quote: The closer it comes to equalizing, the lower the potential difference between the two sides and the lower the reading on your meter. The energy is still THERE. It is now just equalized so there is NO current flow and you can't USE it to do any work.

No,the energy is not still there at all.
Energy was dissipated by the motor,in the form of mechanical and heat energy.
Turion seems to think that all the energy that flows into the motor,passes through the motor,and back into the negative side of the battery.

In fact,most people believe this to be the case.
We place an amp meter between the battery and motor on the positive side,and a volt meter across the motor,and we measure the P/in to the motor. We then place the amp meter between the motor and battery on the negative side,and a volt meter across the motor,and we see that same amount of power flowing from the motor,into the negative side of the battery. The assumption is that the energy flowing out of the positive side of the battery,is the same amount flowing into the negative side of the battery.
This being the case,what energy is heating the motor?--what energy give the motor the ability to perform mechanical work?

When we charge a cap,and discharge that cap by placing a resistor across it,is the same amount of energy still stored in the cap to that of what we started with?.
If you think the answer is yes,then where did the energy come from that was dissipated by the resistor in the form of heat?.

Quote: so when the system is set up with the CORRECT motor and the CORRECT batteries and LARGE wires, and you rotate the batteries properly, allowing a battery to rest after charge and rest after discharge, you can get far more out of the system than you "believed" was contained in the three batteries.

Just a total lack of understanding in amp hour ratings of batteries,and what those ratings mean.
He (Turion) thinks that because a battery has say a 50 amp hour rating on it,it will only deliver a total of 50 amp hours.
This is just wrong,as a battery can deliver far more than it's rated capacity--if you dont mind killing your battery in a hurry,by discharging it below it's recommended discharge value--which they(Matt and Dave) do quite often.

This is nothing more than classic B-D-N- syndrome.


Brad

As always, you're right again TinMan!

His closing sentence pretty much says it all. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-40.html#post314065)

He's just a few steps into what will be a long
journey to truly acquire the knowledge he believes
he already has.  Embryonic Ignorance it is...

We who have experience know that a so-called 'dead'
lead-acid battery which has been freshly discharged
will in several minutes 'recover' with the ability to
provide more energy.  The 'magic' is fully within the
Lead-Acid Battery which really is a miraculous device.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.10.26, 05:42:47
As always, you're right again TinMan!

His closing sentence pretty much says it all. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-40.html#post314065)

He's just a few steps into what will be a long
journey to truly acquire the knowledge he believes
he already has.  Embryonic Ignorance it is...

We who have experience know that a so-called 'dead'
lead-acid battery which has been freshly discharged
will in several minutes 'recover' with the ability to
provide more energy.  The 'magic' is fully within the
Lead-Acid Battery which really is a miraculous device.

It is sad that so many do not yet understand what they are actually looking at when it comes to electrical energy production/generation.

As i have stated many times before,magnetism is a bi-product of current flow,and is not needed to produce an electrical current. In fact,as i have also stated,if magnetism could be removed from the likes of generators,then no back torque would be produced by said generator--yes,we would have self running machines if we could remove the magnetism side effect.

We really are looking at this all wrong.


Brad

Here is an update from Turion on his present state and circumstances as per his claimed ou generator is concerned:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359)   

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2018.11.11, 11:43:19
Here is an update from Turion on his present state and circumstances as per his claimed ou generator is concerned:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359)   

Gyula

Turion is-oh so lost.

How do I know this to be a FACT. First, because I have built coils that utilize the delayed lenz reaction,

No such thing as !delayed! lenz reaction.

meaning they do not develop the field that repels the approaching rotor magnet until it has ALREADY reached top dead center, at which point the repelling field is created, pushing the rotor magnet away in the direction it is traveling, thus assisting or acting as a MOTIVE force. Lenz ASSISTED.

No,no,and no.


When an opposition magnet is ALSO added, neutralizing the attraction of the rotor magnet to the iron core, ADDITIONAL rpms are demonstrated, as well as reduction in amp draw of the motor. NOW you CAN exceed the original rpm of the motor with no coil in place for the same or lower amp draw, especially when you have MULTIPLE COILS. WHY????? Because the Lenz ASSIST is a "motive force" that speeds up the rotor. But it can only speed it up SO MUCH, so you need BOTH the Lenz assist AND the magnetic neutralization to exceed the speed of rotation achieved with the motor when no coils are in place.

Not a chance.
If this was the case,then there would be no need for a prime mover,as the generator would have to have a greater motoring action than a generating drag.

So now you have a motor that is turning faster than it is supposed to for the input you are giving it, turning a generator that is putting out power without dragging down the motor, and you can recover MUCH of the power used to run the motor in the first place if you are using the proper circuit, which we have spent a LOT of time showing over the last ten years.

We have been hearing this ! which we have spent a LOT of time showing over the last ten years!,but has anyone actually seen it being shown?.
Is the 3 months up yet?
Where is this self running generator we have been promised ?

You can run these experiment with and without Lenz assisted coils and with and without opposition magnets. It is NOT rocket science

No,rocket science is simple.
It is just the ejection of mass at velocity.

After I get my new shop set up, which will come after my old shop gets moved over from the old house, which will come after I build a fence around the dog yard at the new house, landscape the back yard at the old house, remodel two bathrooms at the old house, tear out all the carpet and 70's paneling at the old house, patch and paint all the walls, and move my old Landcruiser to the new place.....which can't be done until I drywall the inside of the shed at the new house, build shelves, and move all the parts of the land cruiser to the new house.

Sounds like it's going to be 3 years,not 3 months as Turion first promised.

By the way, stuff DIDN'T get done around my old house because I was too busy working on THIS crap,

This crap?.
So plastering walls is far more important than putting together a machine that breaks all the laws of physics,and delivers clean,free,limitless power  C.C C.C C.C

There is no doubt that Dave and Matt have nothing --well,maybe some delusions  :D

Just going to put it down as another waste of money.

On a good note,i have been in contact with a certain some one here in Oz,and will soon be taking delivery of an old !so called! FE machine.
Anyone know this one? ;)


Brad

Quote from: gyula on 2018.11.11, 11:43:19
Here is an update from Turion on his present state and circumstances as per his claimed ou generator is concerned:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html#post314359)   

Gyula

Magnetic drag is not cogging. Show me a reputable source which says it is.
Could someone please explain the difference ?

Magnetic drag = eddy current drag/opposition=heat
Magnetic cogging =the attraction of a magnet to a ferromagnetic material

Some one should really get bistander out of the nut house,and over here.
He needs to be here--Chet?

Oh,and that bromickey nutjob needs to be put in a home-a mental one


Brad

Is that a " Lutec " prototype per chance?

Bistander is making a valiant effort to clarify and standardize terminology and definitions as used in the discussion.  Unfortunately, the two main opponents in the discussion have so much emotionally invested in their wrong thinking that they are unable or unwilling to recognize TRUTH.

When Turion explains his power measurements of his multi-coiled generator it is difficult to ascertain whether he is measuring a loaded output from each of the coils singly loaded one at a time, or with all of the coils equally loaded and verifying output power of each coil while all coils are simultaneously loaded.  He may be making a serious beginner's mistake with his claim of 300 Watts input for 1800 Watts output.

I strongly suspect it is a misconception based claim.  Loading and measuring the coils one at a time will lead to some seriously wrong and inflated conclusions.

TinMan I'm still laughing!  You've stated it well!

Quote from: Grumage on 2018.11.12, 16:22:27
Is that a " Lutec " prototype per chance?

O0 O0 O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.11.13, 08:46:25
O0 O0 O0

That is going to be interesting O0

Regards

Mike 8)

Have I missed the boat? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-145.html#post314680)

I struggle to find anything new or remarkable that has been shown
with the "3 battery system."  Anything that could leave me behind? ???

What am I supposed to be "warned" about? ???

Much ado about nothing? ;)

Quote from: muDped on 2018.11.22, 20:21:46
Have I missed the boat? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-145.html#post314680)

I struggle to find anything new or remarkable that has been shown
with the "3 battery system."  Anything that could leave me behind? ???

What am I supposed to be "warned" about? ???

Much ado about nothing? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk

That is a good'un (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk) TinMan!

Early on in the 3 battery system discussion I seem to recall
some questioning whether the "system" would work with other
than Lead-Acid Batteries.

Apparently not.  Now it is even required that the batteries be
Big Lead-Acid Batteries.

So what conclusion is any interested party liable to arrive at?

"Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'" C.C :o :-[

Quote from: muDped on 2018.11.24, 00:40:19
That is a good'un (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk) TinMan!

Early on in the 3 battery system discussion I seem to recall
some questioning whether the "system" would work with other
than Lead-Acid Batteries.

Apparently not.  Now it is even required that the batteries be
Big Lead-Acid Batteries.

So what conclusion is any interested party liable to arrive at?

"Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'" C.C :o :-[

My Conclusion: The old 3 battery "shell game" is still fooling people.

The discussion has taken a positive turn (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-145.html#post314813) which
is quite encouraging. :)

However, the "extended run times" are rather easily
accounted for by a thorough comprehension of the
Lead-Acid Battery; its electro-chemical properties as
well as its physical properties while undergoing
discharge and charge. 8)

Is Energy being "recycled?"  I don't see that, but I do
see a regenerative energy distribution.  I do agree that
Pulse Charging is an essential element because that alone
will "unlock" what seems to be "hidden energy" from
within the Lead-Acid Battery.  It all goes back to how the
Lead-Acid Battery Plates have been constructed and what
they are capable of when treated with TLC*. ;)

While the Lead-Acid Battery is definitely "old technology"
for my purposes it is economically advantageous.  With proper
care and frequent non-destructive desulfation the Lead-Acid
Battery can have a very long life. :)

The discussion was quite positive until pent-up emotions and
acrimonious judgementalism entered in. (http://www.energeticforum.com/314839-post4345.html) :(

[* TLC=Tender Loving Care ]

Quote from: muDped on 2018.11.28, 18:41:07
The discussion has taken a positive turn (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-145.html#post314813) which
is quite encouraging. :)

However, the "extended run times" are rather easily
accounted for by a thorough comprehension of the
Lead-Acid Battery; its electro-chemical properties as
well as its physical properties while undergoing
discharge and charge. 8)

Is Energy being "recycled?"  I don't see that, but I do
see a regenerative energy distribution.  I do agree that
Pulse Charging is an essential element because that alone
will "unlock" what seems to be "hidden energy" from
within the Lead-Acid Battery.  It all goes back to how the
Lead-Acid Battery Plates have been constructed and what
they are capable of when treated with TLC*. ;)

While the Lead-Acid Battery is definitely "old technology"
for my purposes it is economically advantageous.  With proper
care and frequent non-destructive desulfation the Lead-Acid
Battery can have a very long life. :)

The discussion was quite positive until pent-up emotions and
acrimonious judgementalism entered in. (http://www.energeticforum.com/314839-post4345.html) :(

[* TLC=Tender Loving Care ]

I thought it was common knowledge that more electrical energy can be delivered by batteries when delivered in pulses.
This not only give the battery time to recover between pulses,but also lowers the heat loss by the battery.

The Matt motor is nothing special,and in fact,it is actually a larger loss in the system than they seem to realize. The system would be far more efficient using a stock motor pulsed by a PWM,with a free wheeling diode across the motor.

There have been many claims made about increased efficiency,but i have not seen any data presented by any of the claimants to back up there claims-nothing but here say.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.11.29, 01:40:07


The Matt motor is nothing special,and in fact,it is actually a larger loss in the system than they seem to realize. The system would be far more efficient using a stock motor pulsed by a PWM,with a free wheeling diode across the motor.



Brad

Brad,
Just so we don't confuse anyone,  the diode across the motor is not a freewheeling diode, it is a BEMF return diode to prevent the voltage across the motor or solenoid from rising too high and causing problems like blowing power transistors etc. (it recycles the BEMF).  The freewheeling diode you are referring to is in series with a motor and stops power from being fed back to the source when the motor becomes a generator.

Room

Quote from: Room3327 on 2018.11.29, 19:09:23
Brad,
Just so we don't confuse anyone,  the diode across the motor is not a freewheeling diode, it is a BEMF return diode to prevent the voltage across the motor or solenoid from rising too high and causing problems like blowing power transistors etc. (it recycles the BEMF).  The freewheeling diode you are referring to is in series with a motor and stops power from being fed back to the source when the motor becomes a generator.

Room

A free wheeling diode is a flyback diode.
It is placed across an inductor  (reversed biased)to allow the current to free wheel around the inductor/diode loop when the supply current is cut off..

This diode dose exactly what you said-stops current/voltage spikes returning to the source.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan
A free wheeling diode is a flyback diode.
It is placed across an inductor  (reversed biased)to allow the current to free wheel around the inductor/diode loop when the supply current is cut off..

This diode dose exactly what you said-stops current/voltage spikes returning to the source.

When this Diode is placed across a Pulse Driven Motor
it also produces a very positive effect;  increasing the
efficiency of the motor, particularly at low rpm.

Which, of course means that it would not be a good
addition to the Generating System which relies upon
an inefficient retrograde pulse generating motor.

Quote from: TinMan on 2018.11.29, 23:41:26
A free wheeling diode is a flyback diode.
It is placed across an inductor  (reversed biased)to allow the current to free wheel around the inductor/diode loop when the supply current is cut off..

This diode dose exactly what you said-stops current/voltage spikes returning to the source.


Brad

Brad
Not that this is real important, and not to argue, but ask yourself what happens when power is removed from the motor, with the motor still turning, and is now a generator.  The current was flowing from negative to positive thru the motor and to the positive of the battery but now as a generator the current flow is reversed coming out of the negative end of the motor leaving the 'flyback' or bemf diode reverse biased.  Now the battery can charge because, as a generator, it's now positive to positive and negative to negative and there is nothing to stop it, that is where the freewheeling diode comes in (in series) and allows the motor to freewheel with out drag from charging the battery.  The negative path to ground is through the body diodes of the power transistors to complete the circuit. There is not often two different words for the same thing in electricity, if there were can you imagine the confusion engineers would be dealing with.

Respectfully
Room3327

Quote from: Room3327 on 2018.12.06, 19:45:44
Brad
Not that this is real important, and not to argue, but ask yourself what happens when power is removed from the motor, with the motor still turning, and is now a generator.  The current was flowing from negative to positive thru the motor and to the positive of the battery but now as a generator the current flow is reversed coming out of the negative end of the motor leaving the 'flyback' or bemf diode reverse biased.  Now the battery can charge because, as a generator, it's now positive to positive and negative to negative and there is nothing to stop it, that is where the freewheeling diode comes in (in series) and allows the motor to freewheel with out drag from charging the battery.  The negative path to ground is through the body diodes of the power transistors to complete the circuit. There is not often two different words for the same thing in electricity, if there were can you imagine the confusion engineers would be dealing with.

Respectfully
Room3327

This requires a little more thought Room,when talking about the matt motor. Think about when the flyback occurs in the matt motor?. The flyback only occurs when the brushes disconnect from the armature segments that are connected to the rotor windings. When this happens,the current flow path then becomes open circuit. As current wants to maintain it's flow,an arc forms between the brushes and armature segments tha are connected to the rotor windings.

So,is the voltage inverted across the rotor windings at this time,as it is with a normal inductor when the source is disconnected?,or dose the voltage polarity remain the same due to the generating action of the spinning motor?

Only when you can answer the above,will you know which way the current will flow,and why i say what i do.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan
The flyback only occurs when the brushes disconnect from the armature
segments that are connected to the rotor windings. When this happens,
the current flow path then becomes open circuit. As current wants to
maintain it's flow,an arc forms between the brushes and armature
segments tha are connected to the rotor windings.

So,is the voltage inverted across the rotor windings at this time,as it is
with a normal inductor when the source is disconnected?, or dose the voltage
polarity remain the same due to the generating action of the spinning motor?

Only when you can answer the above,will you know which way the current
will flow,and why i say what i do.

Excellent question!  One that has a correct answer which is mis-understood by many.

Well now, what is one to think of this? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-148.html#post315403)

It looks as though in the coming year we may finally
see whether this is "all bark and no bite" or whether
there is really something to it.

So the device or devices have truly been tested and
evaluated by some individuals who have very impressive
credentials in Electrical Engineering and Physics?

Have these individuals, I wonder, produced a paper of
any sort to formalize what their findings were on those
occasions when the tests and evaluations were conducted?


This mystery may at long last come to a conclusion with
demonstrations of the device or devices in operation and
delivering excess energy as promised?  He sounds rather
confident that it will happen next year...

Or, will we be again disappointed?

I can hardly wait too.  2019 is just around the corner.

Quote from: muDped on 2018.12.29, 07:45:01
Well now, what is one to think of this? (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-148.html#post315403)

It looks as though in the coming year we may finally
see whether this is "all bark and no bite" or whether
there is really something to it.

So the device or devices have truly been tested and
evaluated by some individuals who have very impressive
credentials in Electrical Engineering and Physics?

Have these individuals, I wonder, produced a paper of
any sort to formalize what their findings were on those
occasions when the tests and evaluations were conducted?


This mystery may at long last come to a conclusion with
demonstrations of the device or devices in operation and
delivering excess energy as promised?  He sounds rather
confident that it will happen next year...

Or, will we be again disappointed?

I can hardly wait too.  2019 is just around the corner.

Oh,so Daves 3 month's(that was up two months ago),has now extended to the end of 2019  C.C

And then this shit stains (Aaron)comment,in reply to mine and Lucs testing of a matt motor.

QuoteLuc Choquette is a liar, con and charlatan - what do you expect? He has so many people fooled into thinking he is some humanitarian that wants to help the world, but I have the emails proving how greedy he is for money - and for something that he did not contribute to!!and anyone that keeps pushing the idea that Luc has replicated or shown anything legit probably has a bogus agenda of their own.

Now aint that just dandy,coming from some one who repeatably rip's off the public with books that prommis free energy machines -if you follow the instructions correctly  C.C

Why bistander continues to remain over there is beyond me????????

More "bark" (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-148.html#post315418) is injected into the discussion.

I'm quite certain that both Dave and MJ are
essentially good folk who are seeking TRUTH
but both are hindered by lack of education
and experience in the area of their obsession.

Apparently their definitions of "Open" and "Closed"
circuits are somewhat different than what is
understood by those in the Real World:  "closed
systems that throw any energy after the work is
completed away."

And this: "All of them are going to loose soon. I promise."

Doesn't he mean "lose?"  Perhaps not, who knows?

I reckon we'll find out sometime in 2019.

MJ mentions Biblical "dominions."  These do exist.
In fact the Navy's Secret Space Program has learned
how to access those "dominions" or extra-dimensional
sources of energy.  Sadly, they are not good places
as the energy acquired from them , though very abundant,
is used exclusively for purposes of warfare and destruction.

There is a reason why in our Real World such energy isn't
available.  It is too much a temptation to use such vast
energies for wrong purposes.

Quote from: Question from TinMan
Why bistander continues to remain over there is beyond me????????

Bi is a Dedicated Truth Warrior in hostile territory without any
doubt.  But Truth is never received well by those who are lost
in their deceptive obsessions.  The FLAK is heaviest when over
the TARGET.  In time I believe both Dave and MJ will come to see
how they've erred.  Bi is planting seeds.

Jim says-->ANyone following your work and Lucs over the years will have no problems working out who tells the truth

Idiot"" i mean Aaron. says-->
Especially when Luc admits he learned it from me and then asks me to verify that he got it right.

Im pretty sure that is not what Jim meant--Jim?
I think that once again,doofus has it ass backward  ;D


Brad

Quote from: muDped on 2018.12.31, 20:55:03
More "bark" (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-148.html#post315418) is injected into the discussion.

snip

Bi is a Dedicated Truth Warrior in hostile territory without any
doubt.  But Truth is never received well by those who are lost
in their deceptive obsessions.  The FLAK is heaviest when over
the TARGET.  In time I believe both Dave and MJ will come to see
how they've erred.  Bi is planting seeds.

I think they are keeping the three battery system going as a smoke screen.

My understanding is they have lucked into a solid state system and this is the one that has brought them research funding.

Least they (Matt) certainly came unglued a year ago when I said forget about the 3 bat and lets have some info on the SOLID STATE system... LOL. Word I got from Dave at that time was this was "IT" but they were having trouble scaling it up.

Ron

Quote from: ronee on 2019.01.01, 16:22:47
snip
Least they (Matt) certainly came unglued a year ago when I said forget about the 3 bat and lets have some info on the SOLID STATE system... LOL. Word I got from Dave at that time was this was "IT" but they were having trouble scaling it up.

Ron

Matt is no dummy. I was in a reasonable state of communication with him a year ago? when I built his PDF motor. Mind you I got the, "it's been so long since I worked on this I forget", response to my questions. But the "feeling" I got was that the new solid state system was along the pulsed transformer sort of thing as the one clue I got was that they were having a high failure rate with the transformers they were getting from China.

Once they got funding any talk of forming a working group was abandoned

Ron

Quote from: Ronee
I think they are keeping the three battery system going as a smoke screen.

My understanding is they have lucked into a solid state system and this is the one that has brought them research funding.

Least they (Matt) certainly came unglued a year ago when I said forget about the 3 bat and lets have some info on the SOLID STATE system... LOL. Word I got from Dave at that time was this was "IT" but they were having trouble scaling it up.

I agree.

Quote from: Ronee
But the "feeling" I got was that the new solid state system was along the pulsed transformer sort of thing as the one clue I got was that they were having a high failure rate with the transformers they were getting from China.

Agreed again.  Pulsed Flyback Systems coupled with the
amazing Lead Acid Battery do seem to produce significant
excess energy until careful analysis and evaluation is
carried out.  The built-in over-capacity within to the Lead
Acid Battery can, for a time, deliver some spectacular
manifestations of what seems to be Excess Energy.

I think how this will ultimately play out will be a great show
to watch.  Popcorn with Real Butter at the ready!

Quote from: Ronee
Matt is no dummy.

I agree here too.  He's quite intelligent, however, his lack
of needed education plus his frequent episodes of emotional
instability seem to be huge obstacles to acquiring comprehension.
Hopefully, this present experience will yield some eye opening
revelations which will enable both he and Dave to see the light.

The Light of Truth that is...

Okay but how about the Lenz less generator Dave has been speaking about ?  That would be the real deal and if it is true, then it should deliver extra output power beyond the input power without any 3 battery system...  I say this becasue the 3 battery setup in itself (without such Lenz free generator) does not have a COP > 1 even if it were to include a Matt_modified pulse motor.  If someone thinks this is not so, please correct me.
Probably Dave is postponing to reveal the generator design till he is granted at least a patent application on it and he may hope to get such till the end of 2019 as I figure from some of his posts.  This is my hypotese of course, mainly based on Dave's hinted sentences.

Gyula

Quote from: Gyula
Okay but how about the Lenz less generator Dave has been speaking about ?

When Dave speaks it is frequently very difficult to know
precisely what Dave is speaking about.

If Dave were to take Bi's suggestion to learn the correct
Language and the correct Concepts then his speakings
would perhaps be more accurately discerned.

It seems nowadays that many Newbies, in their uneducated
state of mind with limited comprehension of the essential
basics and a limited ability to utilize correct terminology,
come into the world of Electricity and Electronics believing
themselves to be able to see Free Energy sources that the
more educated and experienced are unable to see.

As they pursue their unique Newbie insights with thoughts of
reaping many dollars in a patent enabled payoff they set out upon
a passioned and zealous campaign to convert others to their uniquely
enlightened point of view, often by attempting to change the Language
and the Concepts already established.

Quote from: gyula on 2019.01.01, 20:43:11
Okay but how about the Lenz less generator Dave has been speaking about ?  That would be the real deal and if it is true, then it should deliver extra output power beyond the input power without any 3 battery system...  I say this becasue the 3 battery setup in itself (without such Lenz free generator) does not have a COP > 1 even if it were to include a Matt_modified pulse motor.  If someone thinks this is not so, please correct me.
Probably Dave is postponing to reveal the generator design till he is granted at least a patent application on it and he may hope to get such till the end of 2019 as I figure from some of his posts.  This is my hypotese of course, mainly based on Dave's hinted sentences.

Gyula

Hi Gyula

Neither Matt nor Dave have a lenz free generator.

The lenz force is hiding in the cores of the coils in the form of eddy current heat. I have videos of this clearly showing a drop in core temperature when a load is placed across the coils,and at the same time a reduction in the power draw of the motor-along with the speedup under load effect.


Brad

Hi Brad,

I am aware of this "effect"  i.e. using inferior ferromagnetic cores with 'built-in' eddy current losses and this loss is reduced by the counter flux when the output coil is electrically loaded and the counter flux appear in the core.
I hope though that they are little bit more "advanced" than that...  :D   time will tell.

Thanks,
Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2019.01.01, 23:51:05
Hi Brad,

I am aware of this "effect"  i.e. using inferior ferromagnetic cores with 'built-in' eddy current losses and this loss is reduced by the counter flux when the output coil is electrically loaded and the counter flux appear in the core.
I hope though that they are little bit more "advanced" than that...  :D   time will tell.

Thanks,
Gyula

From the video's i have seen,they make there own cores ,B-d-n- style,using cut up welding rods.

The device i used as the generator in my tests,was a well made stepper motor,which use insulated silicon steel core plates.

One easy test i suggested to them was to run the motor without the generator attached,and get the power consumption for the motor.
Run the test again with the generator attached,but no load across the generator,and once again get the motors power consumption.

The other test is simple.
Place a load on the generator.
Calculate P/in to the motor,and calculate P/out of the generator.

They claim to have done this,and the result was 300 watts in,and 1800 watts out.
When asked for video proof,there was no time !apparently!.
Dave said he would show us in 4 months--that was 6 months ago.

Now the release time has shifted to the end of this year-2019.
The device is also now solid state-no more COP 600% generator.

Now,why would you drop any device that runs at a 600% efficiency ?--even if you had a solid state version.

The solid state version has already failed,as they fail to see the current loop they are taking there measurements from.
This is painfully clear when looking at the schematic,where they think they also have power returning to the battery--where they do not.

The very same mistake is made by the bed-ni fans,when measuring P/in and P/out of the simple SSG.

Come the end of 2019,there will be no OU device from Matt and Dave-ill bet on that.


Brad

Hi Brad,

I understand what you wrote and agree. But Dave seems to be aware of 'certain things' and he (or Matt) has not disclosed crucial data either on where they are at in core materail tests, what their actual setups are etc  simply because they decided to go the 'patenting way' first and avoid being ripped off. 

Here is a post from Dave written last November and I mention this to know about the 'certain things' he is aware of:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-27.html)   

I am not an advocate for Dave or Matt of course, I just wish to point out they have not shared openly everything and we do not know where they are at now with their devices.  Very likely they have made big progress last late Summer and Autumn and they decided to keep silence till a patent is granted. 

Thanks for your detailed answer.

Gyula

This update or progress report (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-149.html#post315621) does contain some good news.
Well, following the bad news.

I myself had two similar experiences before I made the switch
to Linux.  Two serious hard drive scrambles with WindDoze that
resulted in the loss of much data.  Was able to retrieve some
of the data with those special programs made for that purpose
but it was highly disorganized and took a lot of time to get it
properly arranged.

Since I've transitioned to Puppy Linux in several of its various
flavors I've not had any further problems.  And if there are certain
applications that need Windows to run them it is not a problem.
Wine for Linux makes it all possible.

Then there is this bottom line:

Quote from: Turion
One day you will be kicking yourself that you wouldn't pay attention
when you had the chance. That day is fast approaching.

What could this possibly mean?

Quote from: muDped on 2019.01.13, 20:38:24
This update or progress report (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-149.html#post315621) does contain some good news.
Well, following the bad news.

I myself had two similar experiences before I made the switch
to Linux.  Two serious hard drive scrambles with WindDoze that
resulted in the loss of much data.  Was able to retrieve some
of the data with those special programs made for that purpose
but it was highly disorganized and took a lot of time to get it
properly arranged.

Since I've transitioned to Puppy Linux in several of its various
flavors I've not had any further problems.  And if there are certain
applications that need Windows to run them it is not a problem.
Wine for Linux makes it all possible.

Then there is this bottom line:

What could this possibly mean?

Wow,things are really getting complicated now.
Now you need two independent Arduinos,driving 6 mosfets per battery-etc-etc-bla-bla

Why did they not finnish the 300 watt in,1800 watt out generator ???
It was 3/4 built last i looked.
My bet is-it never delivered the goods,and now is the time to move onto more complicated systems,that are out of reach of most peoples skillset.

There is simply no way they would have left the 300 watt in/1800 watt out generator if it worked as claimed.
I mean,would anyone here do that?


Brad

Quote Turion
Problem 2. A modified Matt motor was NOT used in the testing TinMan and Luc did.

Now,i modded my own motor that produced the exact same wave form across it as a matt motor dose.
Im also sure that Luc used a !matt modded! motor ?. Did he not get it from you Carroll?.

Brad

Hi Brad,

Yes I did send a Matt modified motor to Luc for testing.  But I believe the test Turion was referring to in that quote was the earlier test which used batteries that were too small and a non modified motor.

Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.01.14, 11:41:06
Hi Brad,

Yes I did send a Matt modified motor to Luc for testing.  But I believe the test Turion was referring to in that quote was the earlier test which used batteries that were too small and a non modified motor.

Carroll

Ah,is that what happened  O0

You might tell dave that he is wrong about a smaller battery having more resistance than a larger battery.
If both batteries are healthy,then the internal resistance will be very low in both.

Only sulphated or damaged batteries will have a high internal resistance.

I would post there my self,but i got kicked out for bringing up to many facts ,and carrying out tests that showed UFOpolotics was wrong--very wrong.

Aaron the rookie dose not like people presenting facts over on his forum.


Brad

A Brief Intermission while we await further developments in
the Generating System Saga.

How those neatly wound coils in motors, generators and toroids
are done. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMqSF9-yVR4)

Here's how those nifty LPG tanks are made and filled. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7T1pP6qrSs)

And if I were to want to make a low speed alternator here's how
I'd go about it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bZNoKKno48) 

Of course we're all wanting to know what the Gov Shutdown is
really all about. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bZNoKKno48)

She has some very positive and optimistic predictions for
2019. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLyq1N9cEA)  It will be a very good year if all transpires as she
believes it shall.

Quote from: muDped on 2019.01.16, 07:34:46
A Brief Intermission while we await further developments in
the Generating System Saga.

How those neatly wound coils in motors, generators and toroids
are done. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMqSF9-yVR4)

Here's how those nifty LPG tanks are made and filled. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7T1pP6qrSs)

It's fascinating. When I see this kind of video, I marvel at all the human ingenuity it took to make it happen.  O0

...

Quote
She has some very positive and optimistic predictions for 2019. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLyq1N9cEA)

It's not fascinating. When I see this kind of video, I am afflicted with all the stupidity and human superstition to produce this intellectual and material nothingness.  :(

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.16, 10:21:32


...
It's not fascinating. When I see this kind of video, I am afflicted with all the stupidity and human superstition to produce this intellectual and material nothingness.  :(

The first 20 seconds was enough for me  C.C

Well
here is something related to energy..... during intermission ..... perhaps someday to Free energy ?
Lanca did share this at Stefan's [somewhere]
Patent granted in 2018 ?

supposedly twice the power density of Neo's.. plug and play for existing manufacturing processes and a greener tech and much more ?

http://license.umn.edu/technologies/20120016_iron-nitride-permanent-magnet-alternative-to-rare-earth-and-neodymium-magnets

member floor mentioned this in his magnet experiment thread.

and while I'm at it ,google vacuum insulated panels VIP, seeing R values approaching 100 per inch and improving almost daily
imagine a day when you could set up a  house in the arctic or the sahara with hardly any environmental temperature support system.

that day was last week.......[yes a bit tongue in cheek ,but true

and then apartment dweller ....think about how sound travels in a Vacuum and all the conflict which will disappear

Quote from: Chet K on 2019.01.16, 13:52:45
Well
here is something related to energy..... during intermission ..... perhaps someday to Free energy ?
Lanca did share this at Stefan's [somewhere]
Patent granted in 2018 ?

supposedly twice the power density of Neo's.. plug and play for existing manufacturing processes and a greener tech and much more ?

http://license.umn.edu/technologies/20120016_iron-nitride-permanent-magnet-alternative-to-rare-earth-and-neodymium-magnets

member floor mentioned this in his magnet experiment thread.

and while I'm at it ,google vacuum insulated panels VIP, seeing R values approaching 100 per inch and improving almost daily
imagine a day when you could set up a  house in the arctic or the sahara with hardly any environmental temperature support system.

that day was last week.......[yes a bit tongue in cheek ,but true

Wow,twice as strong as neo's,and made from very cheap material.

The Tesla motor vehicles power just doubled  ;D

So we can look forward to even smaller,more powerful DC motors  O0

Now all we need is cheap super conducting wire for the windings.  ;)


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.01.16, 14:09:41
Wow,twice as strong as neo's,and made from very cheap material.
...
Brad

It's very interesting, but there's nothing new since the 2016 announcement. Not yet in the trade.

we can make our own interest  O0

I will give a call to see whats up

It is gratifying to see some new technology arise from the
Land of Lakes betwixt Canada and Iowa.

Here's the patent for the Iron Nitride material. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2018/0294078.html)

Some very interesting technical discussion. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14365438)

Material specifications. (https://magnetsim.com/sds/samarium-iron-nitride-alloy-powder)  Apparently it is somewhat hazardous.

In time whatever problems there are will no doubt be resolved.

I dunno.  Once again it looks like "all bark and no bite"
titillation. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-149.html#post315648)  I suppose we'll have to wait breathlessly until
the "Next Level" is announced.

$3000.00 will buy a good amount of Solar Panels which
have proven themselves.  Or a mix of Panels and Batteries.

I dunno.  Noobs tend to make lots of promises.

The discussion has turned to Batteries and how to properly
charge them for maximum useful lifetime. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-150.html#post315816)  This is always a
very beneficial topic for discussion because much has been
learned about particularly, the Lead-Acid Battery in recent
years, regarding the problem of Sulfation and how to address
it.

As a Lead-Acid Battery discharges, either self-discharge while
not under load or while under load, the active materials in the
plates are converted to Lead Sulfate by means of the chemical
reactions.  The Negative plate which is Spongy Lead converts to
Lead Sulfate and the Positive plate which is Lead Dioxide also
converts to Lead Sulfate.  During this process of discharge the
Sulfuric Acid electrolyte becomes less and less concentrated as
the acid is "consumed" by its reaction with the plates.

While fresh the Lead Sulfate is amorphous or non-crystalline in
structure and is easily restored to Active Plate Material at the
respective plates and Sulfuric Acid to replenish electrolyte
concentration by the process of Charging the battery.
Lead Sulfate which has been in the plates for a longer period
of time will have begun to crystallize and thereby become "hardened."
Hard Sulfation which has crystallized is not easily converted back
into active plate materials and sulfuric acid when the battery is
charged.  A voltage considerably higher than the "Normal" charging
voltage is required to convert the crystallized sulfate back into
active plate materials and sulfuric acid.

A group of independent experimenters not associated or affiliated
with the battery industry have discovered an effective and completely
non-destructive, non-traditional method of converting hardened
sulfation to restore battery capacity which has been lost as a
consequence of residual sulfate buildup or Sulfation.

The "secret" is the application of very brief pulses of overvoltage to
the battery being restored or rejuvenated.  The pulses may range
from 10 microSeconds to 200 microSeconds at a very low duty cycle.
The pulse voltage should be a minimum of twice the normal battery
voltage for a 12 volt battery, or about 30 Volts, for a battery in
reasonably good condition.  If the battery is heavily sulfated with
very little acid remaining in the electrolyte the pulse amplitude
may have to be elevated to about 100 Volts in order to initiate
de-sulfation.  As the battery responds and its electrolyte acid
concentration increases the pulse amplitude will decrease
accordingly.

Bringing old, sulfated batteries back to Life is amazing stuff.
It is a fairly slow process which requires some patience as it
is very important to avoid stressing the battery by causing it
to heat.  There is much information about desulfation and
desulfator circuits on the web.  They're easy to build and are
also quite inexpensive.

One example of a unique desulfator design (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leadacidbatterydesulfation/voltage-doubler-desulfator-design-t1193.html) with discussion
which reveals some interesting specifics regarding the
process of sulfate reversal and the need for very sharp pulses.

The capacity rating of the Lead-Acid Battery is rather flexible.
There is more capacity built into the battery than its rating
would seem to indicate.  This is done purposely to assure that
the battery provides sufficient capacity over its lifetime of
service where it will be subjected to less than ideal charging
processes.  It is well established, for example, that the automotive
battery charging system is incapable of fully charging a battery
to the extent that all Lead Sulfate is converted back into active
plate materials.  A small amount of Lead Sulfate will remain on
the plates with each charge cycle which will over time become
"hardened" due to crystallization and thereby gradually decrease
the capacity of the battery.  The built-in reserve capacity is designed
to assure that the battery continues to function reliably with adequate
capacity in spite of this eventuality.

It is possible, while the battery is new, to increase its capacity with
a properly applied charging algorithm (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-151.html#post315939) which is able to access the
built in overcapacity.  This capability may lead to the wrong conclusion
that the charging algorithm has produced some "magic" or that it has
resulted in the release of Free Energy with a COP > 1.0; a repetition of
numerous discharge/charge cycles utilizing the effective algorithm will
in time demonstrate that the increase in capacity reaches a peak which
is consistent with the purposely built-in over capacity of the battery.

While the Lead-Acid battery does indeed possess some incredible ability
to "bounce back" from deep discharge, it is at the same time quite fragile.
As the battery undergoes the chemical reactions of charging and discharging
the plates themselves physically expand and contract in size and mass.
The active materials in the plates are gradually dislodged by this expansion
and contraction which means that the plates lose material over their lifetime
which settles to the bottom of the battery as a mud.  This loss is accelerated
by the overcharging which is periodically performed to equalize the cells.

During the overcharge equalization cycle the battery electrolyzes the water
in its electrolyte to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen gases.  As the gas bubbles
are formed at the plates and release to rise to the surface, some erosion of
loose particles of the plates takes place and additional active material is
lost to add to the accumulation of mud at the bottom of the battery.

While this is going on it appears that the battery is "boiling" and some have
actually thought that it really is boiling and describe it as such.  It isn't actually
boiling but rather it is outgassing due to the electrolysis of water, although, if
not carefully monitored the equalization current if excessive could heat the
battery so much that it can indeed reach a true boiling temperature.  This
outcome must be avoided as it is very destructive to the battery and will
ruin it in short order.

It is for that reason the the Current Interrupt Algorithm, or Pulse Charging
Algorithm, is the best option.  Pulsing the battery with higher than normal
voltage pulses will accomplish the desired chemical reactions at the plates,
will desulfate the plates and will equalize the cells, all without excessive
outgassing or rise in battery temperature.  The useful life of the battery
can be extended to many times what is thought to be normal.

Is it possible to do this in an automobile?  Yes, it is.  Quite easily and
inexpensively too.

http://www.r-charge.net/Free-Energy_ep_56.html

The Evil Tito posted this link at Stefan's today
it mentions Benitez , Matt and Dave claim their
work all points back to Benitez ?

others have claimed this Benitez patent does show OU results
not sure how they qualified or measured it ?

A resurgence of discussion regarding The Generating System (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-154.html#post316358)
which typifies, unfortunately, much of what is wrong with those
who claim More Output Than Input.

The "inventors" who are lost in their delusion will always,
as a last refuge, denigrate those of sound mind who
challenge their delusions with real world science.

A tragedy which repeats itself endlessly until those who
make fantastic claims are ultimately awakened to truth.
It takes time and they never relent without a prolonged
struggle, but thanks to the noble efforts of both Bistander
and Iamnuts it will surely come to pass.

Until the deluded are fully awakened to their folly it is a case
of comedy writ large.  We do not dislike them, nor do we
despise them, but rather, always hope for and seek their
entrance into the Real World of Amazing Things.

Well, here we go again. (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-156.html#post316409)  A recurring theme.

Would anyone care to offer positive feedback on
Erron's suggestions?  He seems quite irritated
with Iamnuts for some reason.

But, of course!  Anyone who asks questions or who
dares to challenge claims is subject to such denigration.
Especially those who are technically competent and who
have some education in these matters. :D

Like Iamnuts, I too would like to see real success with the
Generating System, but it seems very, very unlikely.
Those who cheerlead for the "device" are simply too
defensive and too nasty.  I reckon I'm done with this... :o

The childish behaviors there (http://www.energeticforum.com/316411-post4652.html) are counterproductive. ???

One last comment.  The crux of the issue regarding the
magical generator (300 watts in - 2000 watts out) is
covered here (http://www.energeticforum.com/316459-post4680.html) and here (http://www.energeticforum.com/316460-post4681.html).

Thanks to Mario and NROC as well as Bistander and Iamnuts
for providing the stimulus and excellent discussion.

It isn't complicated and it is old knowledge.

Very similar to the rotating magnets levitating.

The ultimatum. (http://www.energeticforum.com/316456-post4677.html)

It has been and probably will continue to be a circus.

Finis. ;)

Be careful with the material on energeticforum.com, it's a forum to make money.
Everything is manipulated to sell literature or conference tickets. Critical thinking is not allowed, you have to be loyal to the cult.
I was able to do less than 10 posts before I was fired because I objected to the supposed operation of a machine they were presenting.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.03.09, 10:08:35

I was able to do less than 10 posts before I was fired because I objected to the supposed operation of a machine they were presenting.

Join the club ;D

that thread is hilarious.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.03.09, 13:28:34
that thread is hilarious.  ;D ;D ;D

Yes, I agree.  Especially. when a  O0  member  O0  there wrote a post and Aaron answered this:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-157.html#post316509 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-157.html#post316509)

And then came a great answer (in the new thread Aaron started) from member bobo36us, see his text in red color:  http://www.energeticforum.com/316521-post3.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/316521-post3.html)   

Gyula

Just trying to explain to the bloke  that trust has evolved on the Internet :)  O0

Have a giezer at this bullsh-t
Aaron the rookie is really lost.
This guy has no clue at all.


Quote: Don't bother discussing Faraday without discussing the Faraday Disc generator that violates everything you believe - read this published paper from Princeton since you believe the academic world is an authority - it's shameful to be selective of what part of Faraday you want to mention while discarding what doesn't serve your narrative. https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph...aday_motor.pdf

What's that on page 6?
"Furthermore, the generated tension (Volt) is not affected by the amount of current(Ampere) which is drained from the generator, contrary to any other power source, and the power generation process is not reflected back to the prime mover as an additional work load."



That is a violation of your coveted and misunderstood Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, which doesn't apply to electricity anyway and there is NO LENZ'S LAW. While drawing a load from the Faraday Disc generator - there is ZERO back torque going back to the prime mover.

Some have claimed they measure back torque between 10-20% of what is "supposed to be there" but even if it is as high as 20%, it would still be a reduction of 80% of the drag - again, in complete violation of everything you are claiming.

This is the case with Bruce DePalma's N-Machine variation, Adam Trombly's closed magnetic path version and this is the case with Tewari's Space Power Generator version. That is also the case with my world's record highest voltage output N Machine.

All of these are generators that have no drag - the prime mover doesn't even know when a load is being drawn from the generator.

I mentioned the homopolar generator in response to your posts in Dave's thread and you ignored it. Why? Because it doesn't jive with your claims or belief system. I did mention the Evasion of the Essential - it's very strong with you for some reason.

That is but one of many low to no drag generator concepts. Without even mentioning a single other low to no drag generator such as Dave's or any other, the very existence of the Faraday Disc Generator defeats everything you have argued since your argument denies the possibility of its very existence. The only one who has dug themselves a hole is you.



Drag free generator and the scientific world is not up in turmoil over it while it violates your equal and opposite nonsense and it does not have the same associated Lenz effect.


Also, you bring up Faraday and you admit you don't even know what dielectric lines of force are!! The hole gets deeper for you.

bistander mentions dielectric material that is an "insulator".

Actually, conductors and insulators could switch names and it would more accurately describe their function. Conductors REFLECT - that is why 1/11 trillionths or so of the electromotive force moving over the wire actually penetrates the copper to get the electrons to move in the opposite direction. Virtually all of it for all practical purposes is REFLECTED - not conducted. And insulators such as dielectric materials don't insulate, they STORE and soak up dielectricity.

Has anyone seen a Faraday disc generator that has no back torque when a load is placed across it's output ?
I see he(Aaron the rookie)is also claiming he built a world record for highest voltage produced by a faraday disc generator  C.C. has anyone seen that yet?

There is just no end to the amount of garbage this bloke posts.


Brad

And some more dribble from Aaron the rookie

A homopolar generator can be 80% efficient while producing 250% more on the output than you provide on the input. You seem completely unaware of why this is true or how it can be.

There you are again, incapable of acknowledging your ignorance in these matters when pointed out. Your comments blatantly ignores the FACT that it is acknowledged in the conventional academic world, Princeton, etc. that UNLIKE normal generators, there is no back-torque produced when electricity is drawn from the generator completely flushing your nonsensical propaganda down the drain.

No wonder EF has a bad name--this clown is giving it the bad name.

Think im going to do a video,and bury this clown.

Brad

And some more from Rookie

Any backtorque is a fraction of what Lenz's law would predict. I'm a builder and have built a handful of small scale versions. You can measure the rpm with the spinning magnet unloaded then and then load the generator and you can see there is virtually no difference in rpm exactly as the Princeton paper states.



When I say unloaded, it WILL have the brush contact to the magnet, which should be there and in an unloaded condition compared to loaded, nothing changes. The changes that are reported by many people who have experience claim up to a max of about 20% - still meaning there is a 80% reduction.



I really could care less what Princeton says, but being that such heavy value is placed on credentialed academics by you and nutso, that is why I referenced it and there are a lot of references in conventional academics that agree 100% with what I'm saying as well as references that disagree. What that actually means is that there is no inherent value in what any of them say because everyone may be saying something different. You and nutso will simply accept that which agrees with what you already agree while discarding what does not even if it does come from published papers in the academic world.



The homopolar generator concept is a low drag to no drag generator that violates Lenz's Law to a significant and indisputable degree and it doesn't matter what references you point to that disagree because I have hands on experience, which you do not have with regards to these generators, that tells me different.



This fact is so established that even the Pentagon put a gag order on Adam Tromly's homopolar generator patent because they were actually working on the same generator demonstrating the same "overunity" but what they did not know was that the patent applications in Europe were already in circulation thereby defeating their gag order. The bottom line is that there are homopolar type generators that produce hundreds of percent more work than it takes the prime mover to turn them and when drawing electricity from the generator portion, it is not reflected back to the prime mover defeating everything you and nutjob believe about drag free generators.

Seems rookie is now throwing out the insults to the members of his forum as well.
Seems nutso's new name is nutjob  :D

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.03.11, 13:50:55
And some more dribble from Aaron the rookie

A homopolar generator can be 80% efficient while producing 250% more on the output than you provide on the input. You seem completely unaware of why this is true or how it can be.

There you are again, incapable of acknowledging your ignorance in these matters when pointed out. Your comments blatantly ignores the FACT that it is acknowledged in the conventional academic world, Princeton, etc. that UNLIKE normal generators, there is no back-torque produced when electricity is drawn from the generator completely flushing your nonsensical propaganda down the drain.

No wonder EF has a bad name--this clown is giving it the bad name.

Think im going to do a video,and bury this clown.

Brad

I'd be careful given his past record. Speak to Luc! He can get very libelly and litigious . Could your energy better used elsewhere.  I'm out of pocket $130K last year because I spoke up publicly about something I believed in. Got a lot of press and I was right but they came after me. 

Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.03.12, 05:22:56
I'd be careful given his past record. Speak to Luc! He can get very libelly and litigious . Could your energy better used elsewhere.  I'm out of pocket $130K last year because I spoke up publicly about something I believed in. Got a lot of press and I was right but they came after me.

He dose not scare me one bit,and science says he is lying--as he dose to make a quick buck.

He's a fraudster ,plain and simple.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.03.12, 11:25:23
He dose not scare me one bit,and science says he is lying--as he dose to make a quick buck.

He's a fraudster ,plain and simple.

All the more reason to be careful

Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.03.12, 12:25:30
All the more reason to be careful

So here is what Aaron would have to do,should he decide to take me to court-->good luck with that.
He would have to prove that what i said and state is a lie.
This means that he has to provide evidence of a self running machine he claims to have or claims exists.
He would also have to prove his statements to be true,and mine false,in that the faraday disc generator has no back torque C.C.  Now,if braindead Aaron stopped and thought about what he claims,then he would see how much of an idiot he is. What happens when you drop a voltage across a faraday disc generators output terminals ?-->thats right,you have a motor.

So,if there is no backtorque as he claims,you would not have a faraday(homopolar) motor--it wouldnt work-->but we all know it dose  O0

When you place a load across a homopolar generator,it has a motoring action that wants to turn the disc in the opposite direction,as the current is flowing out of the positive output of the generator,and straight into the negative output of the generator-->or ass about if you wish to use true current flow.

Aaron makes to many false claims,and belittles all who disagree with him,when it is he that is wrong,not the members that know what there talking about.


Brad

He doesn't have to prove shit to sue you, only if he wants to win... I've had two cases when I was in the right but it cost me a lot to prove.

Quote from: TinMan on 2019.03.12, 12:58:54
So here is what Aaron would have to do,should he decide to take me to court-->good luck with that.
He would have to prove that what i said and state is a lie.
This means that he has to provide evidence of a self running machine he claims to have or claims exists.
He would also have to prove his statements to be true,and mine false,in that the faraday disc generator has no back torque C.C.  Now,if braindead Aaron stopped and thought about what he claims,then he would see how much of an idiot he is. What happens when you drop a voltage across a faraday disc generators output terminals ?-->thats right,you have a motor.

So,if there is no backtorque as he claims,you would not have a faraday(homopolar) motor--it wouldnt work-->but we all know it dose  O0

When you place a load across a homopolar generator,it has a motoring action that wants to turn the disc in the opposite direction,as the current is flowing out of the positive output of the generator,and straight into the negative output of the generator-->or ass about if you wish to use true current flow.

Aaron makes to many false claims,and belittles all who disagree with him,when it is he that is wrong,not the members that know what there talking about.


Brad

Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.03.13, 02:58:07
He doesn't have to prove shit to sue you, only if he wants to win... I've had two cases when I was in the right but it cost me a lot to prove.

Sue me for what?
I dont have to mention his name for everyone to know who im talking about. And what i say will be what he wrote,so no chance of him being able to do anything about it,as it will only be his words.


Brad

Quote from: JimBoot on 2019.03.13, 02:58:07
He doesn't have to prove shit to sue you, only if he wants to win...

Above all, he is unable to prove anything.

The devices that really work are the ones that anyone can see working, like all conventional technology. They come from only one category of people: those who are smart, educated and rational enough to design, build and provide operational evidence, using human knowledge of their time. Tesla was in this category. Aaron is not in this category.
From gurus who agitate their imaginary delusions in the form of pseudo-science and preach free energy, come only unworkable devices. Free energy will not be achieved by incantations praising miracles, and denigrating scientific thought and method instead of using it for its own benefit.

The discussion about Motor Generators continues. (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13619-motor-generators/page33)

There are problems with use of high strength Neodymium
Magnets especially at startup of Turion's generator model.

About four years ago the alternator in my '67 Empi Bug
failed.  The internal voltage regulator lost the ability to
control rotor current and thus wasn't able to regulate
the output voltage.  Consequently the alternator output
was extremely high which resulted in severe overcharge of
my battery to the point of destroying the battery as well
as severe overheating of the stator output coils and their
burnout.

To  repair the alternator I removed all of the stator wiring
to replace it with new wire and modified the alternator to
accept an external High Side Voltage Regulator while completely
removing the internal burned out voltage regulator.

I manually re-wound the stator three phase wiring which turned
out to be an easier job than I had imagined, re-installed the
alternator, wired up the external Voltage Regulator and all was
good.

Since automobile alternators can easily be re-wound for either
higher or lower output voltage range and the Rotor Magnet is
an electromagnet also easily controlled with regulating circuitry,
I believe they could be the ideal platform for innovative generator
experimentation.

With automotive alternators there is no startup difficulty since
there is no permanent magnet cogging or "lockup" with the
poles.  Getting it up to speed is nearly effortless and then the
load can be activated by energizing the rotor electromagnet to
initiate electrical output.

The rotor advantageously has considerable iron mass which makes
it a pretty good flywheel.

The output is typically three phase which enables some unorthodox
possibilities for output;  some experimenters have series connected
the three phases to produce a "combined single phase" output
in order to test certain characteristics.

The automobile alternator is capable of extremely high rpm operation
which seems to be essential for the so-called "Lenz Free" or "Delayed
Lenz" mode.  If such a mode actually exists, that is.

In any event, the automotive alternator is a much safer option than the
very hazardous Neo PM rotors made with plastic which have disintegrated
in some cases with very hazardous consequence.

Used alternators are inexpensively found at "junk yards" and in my
estimation are the ideal form of basic construct for experimentation
and modification.

I have several alternators acquired over the years which are just
waiting for me to mod them to bring them back to life.  Which is just
what I intend to do when my "laboratory" is resurrected.

The alternator can also be used as a three phase motor in conjunction
with the three phase hobby motor control units (also inexpensive) which
some have installed on bicycles to make the ride electric.  Works very
well.

There are times when a piece of "junk" is just what we're looking for!

How to rewind an alternator stator (http://www.mtmscientific.com/rewind.html)

How to rewind an alternator (https://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Rewind-an-Alternator/)

The discussion about Turion's O.U. Generator takes an interesting
turn. (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13619-motor-generators/page40#post496409)

It is my opinion that the reason there probably aren't many "builders" who
would satisfy Turion's expectations is that his "generator" is rather costly
to construct and that there hasn't been sufficient evidence offered yet
that is rock-solid to counter any doubts that may be felt by interested
observers.

Obviously Turion believes that he has discovered something that is "new
and revolutionary" while many of us old-timers who follow the discussion
see something we've long ago dealt with and find the current discussion
somewhat amusing.

In any event, the demonstration which Turion promises at the upcoming
conference should be quite revealing.  Will his device prove conclusively
that he has really discovered what he believes regarding OverUnity, or
will he be disappointed to discover that what he has found simply
supports the "talk" that the old-timer "talkers" have already found to
be true?

Let us hope that Truth will be found in the conclusion.

Well, the discussion between Turion and bistander is going on in the bistander thread too:

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/14521-the-bistander-thread?p=496414#post496414   

Gyula

Once I see the name "Bedini" in the thread, I know the BS is strong.

Turion makes the same claims as hundreds before him.  Complains no one had replicated his motor, etc.

Just more of the same year after year.  Best to ignore it, as it isn't going anywhere.

Of course you're absolutely correct Grumpy.  I tend to believe that there is nothing of any real value there.

But, then again, this particular segment of the discussion is quite revealing. (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/14521-the-bistander-thread/page108)

Showing us in glaring "extremist manner" what is far too common in the Free Energy Arena.

Some People are clearly obsessed with something very strange but apparently quite powerful.

When common sense and respectable behaviors are thrown out the window, where does it all lead?

Certainly not to the Fountain of Free Energy.

The Scientific Method is too easily dispensed with or ignorantly maligned by way too many.