Bill Mehess is this the one??

[MileHigh]

WaveWatcher:

Your points about the (big) battery testing are indeed good and we don't want anybody doing anything risky or dangerous with their batteries.

In the rarefied model for Billmehess we are sure that it's a very high impedance source and since the power is all allegedly "free" we don't care if we burn off half of the power inside the device, all that we care about is extracting the most possible power from the device.

We are making the assumption that we are not going to damage the device doing this because the power levels are so low from this "fountain of energy" so we go for broke and try to suck as much free power as possible.

Certainly we know that there should not be any thermal issues when we go for broke and try to get as much power as possible.  On the other hand, my original point was to characterize the device and not necessarily do an impedance match when running the device.  The important thing is to measure the output impedance itself so you can characterize the nature of the power source.

The implicit desire is to "elevate" the discussion on OU and get people up to speed with the concept of output impedance.  I have seen a fair number of devices like this where the forum members only talk about how many millivolts it generates and how many hours it takes to charge a capacitor.

You never know....

MileHigh

[exnihiloest]

...
Impedance matching is not always the best thing to do between source and load. Keep in mind that when your load and battery have matched impedance 1/2 of the energy used is wasted by the battery as heat.
...

Impedance matching is done for only one reason: to get the maximum power from the source to the charge.
Its utility is mainly for ac circuit, by nullifying the reactive component of the charge impedance.
Naturally it would be a disaster to apply it to the battery except if we want to obtain the maximum energy in the shortest time, at the price that as many power in the charge as in the battery will be dissipated, possibly leaving us with a melted battery... 

[BEP]

MH,

We are in complete agreement except for one small detail.......


I would have suggested a 100 megohm pot   

My concern was for parts of the discussion being appled elsewhere out of context. I've made that mistake before on some other subjects 

[PhysicsProf]

  Very good points.  Thanks for the refresher and the application to Bill Mehess's claims.  (He seems to have gone rather silent lately.)

[Chet K]

Bill
Quote:

I spent about 12 hours in my shop adding my upgrades here are this morning results, I will be running tests all day long and over the weekend to see if these hold up

First I am using just 3 modules and a 60,000 uf cap.

Time         Start voltage        end voltage         Cap voltage

8:30 am     2.106 volts             2.256 volts          .562 volts
9:00 am      2.115                    2.256                  .563
9.15 am      2.136                     2.261                  .573
9.45am       2.199                    2.285                   .555
10 am         2.202                     2.290                  .540
10:15 am    2.195                    2.276                   .539
10:30am     2.213                    2.285                    .538

The ending voltage is the voltage after 15 minutes when I disconnect the cap. I short out the cap during that time to restart from  a 0.00 reading of the cap.
The test is now done for 60 seconds not 1 hr or 3600 sec.

The device has always showed a increase in voltage even after running the load.
using  E= 1/2 cv (squared) and dividing by 60 sec. wattage is now .145 watts  

[MileHigh]

Yikes, there are a lot of problems with this whole attempt to measure here the more I think about it.

Firstly, there is some uncertainty if the time period is 60 seconds or 15 minutes.

Let's assume it's 15 minutes for the sake of argument.  Bill would have to set up a control test where he just has a cap and connects approximately the same amount of wire to the capacitor terminals.  It's very possible that the big electrolytic cap is self-charging from the ions in the air.  So if the control setup creeps up in voltage also that just about kills the proposition.

Going back to the testing as it is being done now, when you first start the test with the big cap at zero volts, then essentially 100% of the alleged free energy being generated by the device is being burned off inside the device itself.  It's a crippling problem for the cap test and the larger the capacitor the worse off things are.

WaveWatcher also mentioned you probably need a 100 Mega-ohm potentiometer to do the impedance matching test and he might be right.  If he is right then the typical 1 Mega-ohm input resistance of the multimeter would be disturbing your attempt to make the impedance matching measurement.  If that's the case you need to do a differential voltage measurement between say a 1 kilo-ohm potentiometer and Billmehess' device and turn the potentiometer to zero-out the voltage differential.  Then measure the voltage on the potentiometer output separately.  All that just to measure the open-circuit voltage on what we assume is a super-high-impedance output device.

Then you have to repeat the process, but this time say use a 10 Mega-ohm resistor across the device, and use the potentiometer and voltage differential method to measure the voltage drop.

You do all that and you have a relatively undisturbed open-circuit voltage measurement, and a relatively undisturbed voltage measurement under a 10 Mega-ohm load.  That gives you the ability to calculate the output impedance of the device with some confidence.

Once you do that you are done.  You know the open-circuit voltage and you know the output impedance of the device.  That's it, now you know it's power output capabilities under load.  All of this is based on the presumption that the input resistance of your multimeter is too "low" and will disturb Billmehess' device.

Before I did any of this, I would do the control experiment with the capacitor to see if the whole thing is just due to hot (ionized) air and the nature of electrolytic capacitors.

But certainly this primitive big electrolytic cap test is junk, the device is seeing a short-circuit to ground or near-ground for a long time and most of the alleged free power is being burned off inside the device itself.  Therefore the output power is not really being measured properly and the number crunching is showing power values that are much lower than they potentially are with an impedance-matched setup.

The critical thing is to figure out the output impedance of Billmehess' device.  If the output impedance is very very high then you have to go to the extreme measures like I outline above.

Anyway, this posting will likely be ignored so what the hey....

MileHigh

[EMdevices]

MH,    I'm going to let you handle this one.  I'm too tired now.  But we can calculate the source impedance from the data he supplied because:    

He gave us the capacitance.   60 000 uF
He gave us the charge time = 60 sec.
He gave us the capacitor voltages,  e.g.   0.573 V
He gave us the open source voltage,  e.g.  2.26 V


So,  work backwords and solve for the time constant, then solve for the resistance.

EM

[MileHigh]

EM:

You could very well be right, and you are bringing it back full circle, because that's what i said the other day.  I suppose that WaveWatcher mentioning using a 100 Mega-ohm pot got me thinking.  Not to mention the whole thing could primarily be due to the caps self-charging.  He does mention 15 minutes and 60 seconds in the same posting though, which is confusing.

The bottom line is somebody should try to measure the output impedance.  Assume for starters that your open-circuit voltage is not being disturbed by your multimeter.   That would be a good start.

MileHigh

[EMdevices]

MH,  

This is what I get by inverting the basic equation:   V(t) = Vf  exp(-t/tau),  where 'tau' is the time constant.

tau = - t /  ln (V(t)/Vf)  = -60 / ln(0.573/2.26) = 43.7 s

tau = RC ,    therefore

R = 43.7 s / 0.06 F = 729 ohms

EM

PS.    He said he has 3 modules, and probably they are in parallel like he mentioned,  so the internal resistance of each module is 3 x 729 ohms = 2187 ohms  What kind of process would have this kind of internal resistance?   It has to be a chemical process and poorly designed battery geometry.

[MileHigh]

EM:

It sounds really low, I am suspecting that the time is actually 15 minutes.  Or something else is not right.

Anyway, I should just wait for the big unveil.

MileHigh

PS:  That sounding better but I'm still unsure of the data.
PPS:  You are blowing my mind with your use of natural logarithms!  lol

[Chet K]

Bill
Quote:
Voltage in = 0
Voltage out = 800 mv
No electrolytes
No consumables
No heat produced
No emissions
-----------
You won't be able to wait MH!!
None of us is any good at waiting !!

Chet

[MileHigh]

Chet:

I have heard you on Karoke night doing an upbeat version of a twangy country song, "The Ballad of the Unhatched Chickens" many times now...

Careful!

MileHigh

[Allcanadian]

Bill Mehess is this the one?, I'm thinking not just because of the low power output and a simple gut feeling which ain't very logical but it has usually served me well in the past, call it intuition. As well if he did have something would it matter? If the Kapanadze device can supposedly pull 100Kw out of thin air from something that could sit on my kitchen table we have an issue of practicality to contend with.
That's my 2 cents

Regards
AC

[Chet K]

Bill
Quote:
Ok lets run the numbers

joule seeker says the wattage is 150 mw or .000015
voltage is 2.5 volts

we know that

wattage= voltage x amperage

then
.000015=2.5v(amps)

voltage divided into watts gives us a amperage of .000006 or 6 microamps. Google says that a LED can use very low amperage, with its norm being 20-25 ma. And on the low side 1 ma to 2 ma.
What am I missing here?
But the LED is lighting looks like real world application to me. And this is with only 3 modules that have been under a load for 11 hours and after the load (60000 mf cap.) was removed continued to raise in value.
My hat is off to all your really bright people out there so please explain how or why this is happening
Bill
----------------

[exnihiloest]

...
My concern was for parts of the discussion being appled elsewhere out of context.
...

I understand. But Bill Mehess claim is not propped up by any evidence, so  general concepts involved in this thread are much more constructive... 

[ion]

Bill Mehess is this the one?, I'm thinking not just because of the low power output and a simple gut feeling which ain't very logical but it has usually served me well in the past, call it intuition. As well if he did have something would it matter? If the Kapanadze device can supposedly pull 100Kw out of thin air from something that could sit on my kitchen table we have an issue of practicality to contend with.
That's my 2 cents

Regards
AC

I'm in agreement here, once again the tail is wagging the dog as the best minds on the forum are bogged down with something that will surely crash and burn before Aug 31. (my gut feeling based on Captain Pecans other bold claims of OU in the past). How many times have we seen this scenario play out before with Ainslie LTseung,  etc.

Now Bill Mehess is asking forum members to answer questions that he poses without revealing anything of the construction of the device. Do we have to do his homework for him while he keeps all the marbles?

These minds would probably be better off discussing how OU might be achieved starting from scratch with a clean blackboard.

Meanwhile, the perpetual cheerleader wants to hitch his wagon to the latest long shot.

Hats off to you guys anyway.

[Chet K]

ION
I bring my wagon here for a reality Check!,for the sole purpose of Vetting these claims ASAP so as not to waste the resources of the Community!

Its the reason I call people ,Its the reason my Name is no secret.
 How can you have a credible conversation with a complete stranger If the Conversation starts out "My identity is a secret" ,or something of that nature............

As long as the members here and elsewhere remain anonymous it will always Stifle progress!,however I do see the Need for anonymity.

If you think I like putting my name and Email address up on a public forum when A man is screaming "I GOT IT I GOT IT".
You are Very Very Mistakin!!

I do this for this community!

I will gladly play the fool for this effort,nothing ventured nothing gained!

I respect your opinion.
Chet



BTW
I'm not as bad as I used to be.............
BTBTW
Anybody else having problems getting on OU.com?
A friend in UK also not getting thru for some time now??

[PhysicsProf]

  I haven't been able to get onto OU for about the last 7 hours.

[ion]

Chet

For the record, I think you are a good guy and bring a lot of things to be examined.

It sometimes puzzles me that you start with such zeal, you must have been disappointed many times.

Anyway better to have Enthusiasm (filled with God) than my rabid skepticism.

Still I keep hoping too.

Cheers, ION

[Chet K]

Thank you ION
My Zeal does come from faith
Faith in a creator and faith in Our destiny ,which IMO includes a source of power for all!!

Your scepticism is founded in Knowledge,a very strong footing!,And I know if anyone knows his way around a
transformer its you.............

Thank you

@Prof
A good sign is Stefan put up the "I'll be back" ..........

Chet