PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-07-16, 21:28:11
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Author Topic: Generating System  (Read 26346 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
 author=ion link=topic=3649.msg68820#msg68820 date=1532449346]
 


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

Quote
The 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.

Quote
This 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.

Quote
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.

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
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

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
You 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.

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

Very little.

Quote
Therefore 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?.

Quote
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".

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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3562
It's turtles all the way down
Quote
OK,so lets get down to the nitty gritty here.

Quote

   
Quote
The 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

   
Quote
This 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

   
Quote
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.

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

   
Quote
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

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

   
Quote
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.


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

 
Quote
You 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

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


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

Quote

   
Quote
Therefore 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

   
Quote
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.

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

   
Quote
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.

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

   
Quote
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".


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
« Last Edit: 2018-07-25, 17:37:53 by ion »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1160
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 CH0 and CH1 values to get the best fit to the measured voltages, see the third image.  Interestingly those CH0 and CH1 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
« Last Edit: 2018-07-26, 15:08:51 by Smudge »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
author=ion link=topic=3649.msg68832#msg68832 date=1532531121]

   

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
you only need a little to skew readings

I do not think 11+% is very little

Quote
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

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.

Quote
by using the correct formula

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

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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?

The PMs in the DC motor.

 
Quote
why 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.

Quote
I 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.

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

Of course we can--always. O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1160
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 CH0 and CH1 values to get the best fit to the measured voltages, see the third image.  Interestingly those CH0 and CH1 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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1160
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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3562
It's turtles all the way down
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:
Quote
The PMs in the DC motor.

This needs to be seriously discussed, as it seems there are quite a few questions that arise.
« Last Edit: 2018-07-26, 20:01:17 by ion »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1426
A strange response to a valid request.

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.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
A strange response to a valid request.

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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 821
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
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1426
Quote
From 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


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3104
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]

« Last Edit: 2018-07-27, 11:11:15 by Chet K »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
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??????????????????????????????????????


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3104
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....













« Last Edit: 2018-07-27, 14:52:15 by Chet K »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3104
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 ].





   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1426
Luc's test of the retrograde 'Matt Motor" 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.

Additionally, the 'inventor' reveals the real 'secret' of
the system:

Quote
Quote 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.
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 the discussion pretty much goes back into
Lala Land.  How disappointing.
« Last Edit: 2018-07-28, 22:11:38 by muDped »


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1426

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?

Quote
Quote 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...


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Group: Guest
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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097


Buy me a cigar
Hey Brad.

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

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
author=Chet K link=topic=3649.msg68852#msg68852 date=1532700063]


Quote
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...


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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3507


Buy me some coffee
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


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2097


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-07-16, 21:28:11