My Visit To A Free Energy Device

[aussieaussieaussie]

Dear All,

Would like to hear you thoughts on my recent visit to view a free energy machine.

No Pictures or names etc....

The device looked like a mix of Bedini and Tesla. Coils, Magnets, Rotor, Brushes and lots of sparks. No printed circuits that I could see.
The timing looked like it was controlled by the brushes.

I viewed two devices one big and one small.

The input was 10 x 12V Standard size car batteries hooked up in series.


The small device was tested, output was 5-6 x 60w standard incandescent bulbs. Lights could be seen slightly flickering.

Scope showed that the input was pulsed with about 1/5th on cycle, looked very close to sign wave. 6.4m/s peak with a slight drop off at end of peak.

Output was straight DC with a small 1-2V drop on every Input on cycle.

His math showed something like 300% efficiency.. I could not follow his math.
Input: 291w  1/6 pulse
Output: 212w DC (slight drop on input pulse)


Next he showed me a larger unit. Input was the same set of batts.
Output was maybe 10 bulbs like before, also flickering (just enough to be annoying).
Input was shown by analogue watt meter - 50watts
Output was shown by analogue volt and amp meters - I was told it was normal DC like before.
95 V  x 4.4 Amps = 418 watts

I was told it could NOT be run continuously with two banks of batteries because of the inefficiencies of batteries and the voltage differential.

Solar would work, but you would need to use the 5/6 off cycle time to charge a bank of batteries for night time running. Good solar controller?


Obviously a lot is going through my head, it was a 2hr visit, so a lot more was said.

I just want to know, how to prove this system? - because I was kinda just hoping to have two battery banks and a good book!

I was going to go back with an EE next week and do some proper tests, what should we be looking for?


Thanks for you help in advance!

Ozy

[BEP]

Going back with a real EE is a great step. The EE will know what to look at and should be able to answer any questions you have.

Good Luck!

[aussieaussieaussie]

Finding an EE who will go with me is the hard part!
Most want $200+
None (out of 18) I have called said they would be interested in taking a hour to have a look for free.

I thought someone would of done it just out of curiosity....

Anyhoo,

Check out:

http://www.lutec.com.au/other/SGS_Report.pdf

This is the latest independent engineer report.
Let me know what you think...

Ozy

[aussieaussieaussie]

I am shocked that no one is willing to put in their two cents here.

Please put aside the 'scam' aspect. Read the engineers report. The report details exactly what I saw.

My main concern is, is the methodology correct here?

Should we be testing it differently?

Their original designs were AC->AC converters, which were harder to prove, this is a DC->DC converter - which should be easier to measure.

A lot has been done with these guys over the past 10 years, don't let old opinions get in the way of a new device.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, still no luck on finding an EE to visit with me.

Ozy

[muDped]

Your inability to find anyone who would be willing to
accompany you to observe the device in operation
is indeed puzzling.  Surely there must be at least
one technically competent interested party motivated
by curiosity somewhere nearby!  At no cost!

Or, perhaps not...  We're living in the era of "love of
money" and all that it enables, sadly.

Regarding the Lutec SGS Report;  being provided
enough information to form an accurate mental image
of the machine and the process is often necessary.
Without adequate detail it is difficult to develop any
meaningful opinion.

The Lutec Home Page is still "undergoing reconstruction"
since 25 June 2010.  Can you provide links to additional
amplifying material? 

[MileHigh]

Ozy:

I looked at the report and the real data starts on page eight.  The problem for me is that without any of the data being annotated with descriptions it's frankly hard to make head or tail about what's going on and what the numbers mean.  Why couldn't that whole measurement process have been annotated and described step by step?  I am not going to take out my calculator and try to reverse-engineer what the numbers mean.  It's not obvious at all.

If they have such great numbers they should be able to take some of the output power and condition it if required, and route it back to the input to make a true self-runner.

You said:

The input was 10 x 12V Standard size car batteries hooked up in series.  The small device was tested, output was 5-6 x 60w standard incandescent bulbs. Lights could be seen slightly flickering.  Scope showed that the input was pulsed with about 1/5th on cycle, looked very close to sign wave.

How can DC from a bank of batteries after it gets pulsed by some circuitry look like a sine wave when you are still calling it the "input?"

Sorry, that's all that I can offer you.  We all know about Lutec and their history.  They were supposed to have a viable device in 2000 or 2001.  It's now 2011.

Personally, I would not be surprised if Lutec never "makes it" at all.

MileHigh

[muDped]

...

Check out:

http://www.lutec.com.au/other/SGS_Report.pdf

This is the latest independent engineer report.
Let me know what you think...

Ozy

After studying both reports you provided links to with
their illustrations and diagrams, I'd say the measurements
do indeed bear further looking into.

Part 1

Part 2

I wish you success in finding a technically competent
observer who would be able to additionally verify and
authenticate the test results.

[aussieaussieaussie]

Thanks Folks,

I am now looking at the university to see if I can find an Student EE.

I too am a little puzzled by why it can't be looped back, with that amount of OU, you think it would be possible.

Will report back when I have something.

Ozy

[poynt99]

I've just read this report, and I find a few things quite lacking and erroneous.

First, incandescent bulbs should not be considered as purely "resistive loads".

Second, there are no diagrams outlining the test setup, the equipment, the measurement points etc.

Third, by the text it would seem that Lutec was "driving" this test, while SGS were only supervising. This is by no means the way it should have been done. It should be quite the opposite.

This report and the so-called testing that was done, is a joke IMHO, and is not convincing in the least.

.99

[mysticalchemist]

I would love to see this, but I'm in Alice Springs. Anyhow, I agree with the others that the report is pretty meaningless without at least some diagrams of the basic setup.

The thing that really makes me very suspicious is that they need to use 10 x 12v car size batteries for power. I understand it is maybe to get the 120V DC input, but why do they need so much current capacity if the machine is OU?

My suspicion is that the device draws very high peak current pulses that the meters do not properly register, but the batteries are happy to supply.

Running it off an inverter from 1 x 12v car battery would make measurements much more valid and remove the possibility of fast, high current pulses.


Peter

[muDped]

Attached are the diagrams provided in the report.

While simplified, perhaps to retain certain proprietary
details, one is able to get the general idea of what
the device does and how it probably functions.

Certainly, a more comprehensive and detailed evaluation
is in order to explore all possible input power
characteristics.  If I had the appropriate physical location
I'd be more than happy to conduct the evaluation.  Retirees
have more free time than most.