Where is the free energy?

[mbrownn]

On one charge this 72V 7Ah battery (probably a set of 6x12V 7Ah UPS batteries) inventor claimed to ride 800km

Downhill?

I dont see anything special, is there more to it that, i didnt notice?

[boguslaw]

Circuit attached. Both primary and secondary is used.

[Cadman]

Doesn't the Lenz law describe the creation of energy?

If you have a coil subjected to a changing B field the coil will create an induced field which attempts to negate the applied field - ie to keep the total field at zero - its original value.
And that induced field must be associated with a current.

You have two fields from one, the original applied field and the secondary induced field, which is created separately in opposition to the first. Where does the induced field and current come from?

.

[Ted Ewert]

Doesn't the Lenz law describe the creation of energy?

If you have a coil subjected to a changing B field the coil will create an induced field which attempts to negate the applied field - ie to keep the total field at zero - its original value.
And that induced field must be associated with a current.

You have two fields from one, the original applied field and the secondary induced field, which is created separately in opposition to the first. Where does the induced field and current come from?

.

The changing B field. The inertia of a magnet passing by would qualify. Inertia is converted into electrical power, and depending how much power is extracted, a corresponding drag is induced on the movement of the magnet. No movement: no dynamic B field and no drag.

[mbrownn]

Circuit attached. Both primary and secondary is used.

Interesting considering what I discussed with Ted Ewert. This makes the transformer output and the inductive kickback from a pulsed transformer travel in the same direction. Not only that, this output is pulsed into a third, not magnetically connected coil which will then have its own inductive kickback.

((1x2)x2) = 4

The first capacitor is set up in an LC circuit with the secondary and the free coil.

oops its not a LC because of the diode

[boguslaw]

Interesting considering what I discussed with Ted Ewert. This makes the transformer output and the inductive kickback from a pulsed transformer travel in the same direction. Not only that, this output is pulsed into a third, not magnetically connected coil which will then have its own inductive kickback.

((1x2)x2) = 4

The first capacitor is set up in an LC circuit with the secondary and the free coil.

Sure. Newton laws always apply, though they were spoiled in electronics. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction.

[mbrownn]

I just ran the circuit in a simulator, Interesting but I cant get a gain out of it as it is

Power from source = 2Kw
Power to load = 1Kw

The problem is all the gains run their current through the source, therefore draining it.

This circuit is interesting but I am sure it is part of a greater circuit and we would need to know what that is to make a judgement. Merely disconnecting it from the source and providing an alternative path after the pulse does not result in any ability to use the gain.

I will play around with it some more and see if I find anything.

[mbrownn]

I have just tried the following:-

If the transformer were to have a 1 to 1 ratio and an inductance of 10mH with a resistance of less than an ohm.

The free coil was actually a motor such as a car starter motor with a resistance of 0.045 ohms and 10mH inductance

The capacitors were 100uF

The pulse was 72v 4A at 10% duty cycle 60Hz. The supply isolated from the circuit after the pulse with a diode providing a path for the inductive kickback in the position of the source.

The resultant current flow through the motor would approximate a saw tooth wave jumping to 72v 2A at the start for 10% duration. over the next 90% the current would taper off to zero.

Our input would be 72v x 4A x 0.1 x = 28.8w

Our motor would run at (1/2 72v) x (1/2 2A) x 60 = 36w

The motor would be running purely off inductive Kickback

All theoretical of course but we just exploited the gain.

If we played around with things we may be able to use the current in the pulse to power the motor too which could give is 63.8w output for a 28w input.

Its just a matter of recycling.

My conclusion is that the circuit has potential but it is not the whole story.

[mbrownn]

After more playing I am coming to the conclusion that the 2 caps could be there to remove high voltage spikes that would damage the transistor.

The third coil has the effect of increasing the duration of the inductive kickback at the expense of peak current.

The component Rt could be a rheostat.

Its still a very interesting circuit

[jettis]

As long as the switches are open, no motor will run.
If you close the left most switch, M1 will very shortly run very fast (5x rated voltage).
The motor's impedance and the capacitor size determine how fast and how long it will run.
Then it will stop running when the first capacitor is charged to almost 60 V.
I do not know how you plan to switch but I do know this:
Energy can neither be created or destructed and therefore there will always be a constant amount. If you convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, then that energy is no longer in your electrical system, so it can not be recycled in that way.
But for the same reason, all energy can be called recycled energy.
If you recover the heat energy generated in the wiring and the mechanical energy then you can use that again.
Energy can not be "amplified" because that suggests that it would appear out of nowhere, or out of itself (as in 1 becomes 1 + 1). That simply will never happen.
If you want to generate energy, you require a source of energy. Next you will only generate what you obtain from your source. In other words you can only convert energy from one form into another.
All other schemes are illusionary.



Ernst.

Hi Ernst,

I would like you to perform the following tests each in the sequence listed on the diagram. Carry out each run for 10 minutes use a dc load of your choice... That includes a 12 volt light bulb. I am sure you will find it interesting.

I do disagree with your statement "If you convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, then that energy is no longer in your electrical system, so it can not be recycled in that way." Electrical energy does not convert into mechanical energy and get used up... It simply flows through the load and can be recaptured after use. So basically an electric motor is close to a free running device if we stop the current from completing its path back to ground.

-Dave Wing

[mbrownn]

Hi Ernst,

I do disagree with your statement "If you convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, then that energy is no longer in your electrical system, so it can not be recycled in that way." Electrical energy does not convert into mechanical energy and get used up... It simply flows through the load and can be recaptured after use. So basically an electric motor is close to a free running device if we stop the current from completing its path back to ground.

-Dave Wing

Yes and no

Current is the constant, what goes in must come out. Voltage is easily eliminated or lost. Power or energy is the first multiplied by the second so by eliminating voltage eliminates/consumes energy.

I agree that no current is consumed or converted to produce mechanical power, and this is where it gets interesting.

Imagine a coil, we put 10v at 10 amps through it or 100w and get a magnetic field, It can carry much more current but we limit the current to 10 amps. Now we put 5v at 10 amps through it and get the same magnetic strength although we used half the power. Voltage had no noticeable effect on it. We dont need a lot of voltage to create a strong motor. A car starter motor is a good example.

A car starter motor runs on about 4.5 to 5 volts at full load, 10 volts are needed because we have to overcome BEMF of about half the supply voltage. (the voltage of the battery drops to around 9 or 10v because of the huge current draw under starting conditions)

All conventional motors suffer with BEMF but it is possible to build motors with lower BEMF.

The voltage is used to overcome BEMF, Ohmic resistance and impedance caused by the inductance of the coil. The ohmic resistance produces heat and this is lost energy. The voltage used to overcome inductance can be recovered. Now ask why we build motors with high resistance when we don’t need to. Its because motors with low resistance need more copper and that makes them bigger and more expensive.

I could be wrong here I don’t think mechanical power is produced by converting electrical power. I have read an explanation of this that convinced me, but I cant find a link to it now. Peter L's videos also suggest the same.

[jettis]

In the beginning of this conquest, I posted the plans to Keelynet on the "school girl motor". I know that several of you on Keelynet tried very hard to build this motor, but I said in the beginning, just build the motor the way I said to do it. In short, do not change anything until you have something working!!!! There is a learning process here for those who built this motor the way I said to do it (about ten people). I did not say to hook meters all over the machine, I just said make it run first and then move to the next step. The work on this little model was very important to get an understanding of what the energy was and how it worked, and how you would trigger it in the end. Also at the same time, Tom Bearden went out of his way to write what my process was with my permission and E-Mailed it to Jerry Decker at Keelynet. What ever happened to that paper, I don't know, but if you did not understand the paper you did not understand the motor/ energizer. All along Keelynet was given the information.

The US Patent office made me change the name of this device to fit into a category of motor generators. I was very lucky that they let me keep the mono pole part of it. The next fight with the Patent Office was the timing of the machine and how this device charged it's batteries, but we worked this out (with a few word changes by them).

I said to Jerry Decker and others in the beginning that their were three patents, even if in my own mind it was one machine that the patent office would never allow. I had already moved so far forward in the technology on the radiant energizers that I was into the solid state inverted circuit machines. The next step was to get the mechanical machines to be verified by some "expert PHD's". As it turned out all of these people were just "money suckers" and did not live up to their word even when the machine was performing in front of their own eyes. (The problem was the test equipment would not read the energy flow to the batteries even though they were charging). My "coke formula" was kept out of the patent by the Patent examiner changing words in the text . (new speak). To over come this I broke the machine into three patents, which cost my company three times the amount.

Bold text and underlining added to quote.

Taken from...I have set up this page you may review what has been going on in the past three years

The paper to Jerry Decker can be found here... Keely Net Mail List: Re: Negative Resistance discovered??

Here is a snippet, form the email to Jerry Decker from Tom Bearden...

Anyway, the process shows that AFTER I use energy once
in a component to do work, the escaping energy resulting
can be regathered (reconverged by retroreflection) and
used again. And again, and again, and again. The
universe does this all the time.
We are told that all the energy in the universe existed
shortly after the big bang got going originally. And every
joule of that originally energy has been doing joule
after joule of work, ever since.
Most researchers do not comprehend the real conservation
of energy law: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
And it can be "regathered" and reused, without limit. You
can get many joules of work from a single joule of energy,
IF you iteratively retroreflect and keep bringing much
of the energy back, over and over.
Unfortunately, our profs unwittingly ASSUMED one pass of
the energy, no multiple passes allows and no retroreflection
allowed, and so taught us erroneously that a joule of
energy could produce only one joule of work -- failing to
add "in a single pass work (energy scattering) process."

Bold text and underlining added to quote.

The diagram, with the test, I posted in my post previous to this one is basic but it does much the same as retroreflection it just does it at a lower frequency, once every 10 minutes... When we manually disconnect the load. The Bedini Tesla Swith or Benitez device does the same thing flip flopping back and forth and taking the AC wave between the negatives.

The point is energy can be reused over and over again repeatedly as it cannot be created or destroyed.

Does anyone know how to read the current going back to the small side battery? Was this not the main issue that the patent office would not recognize even though the small side battery was charging on one wire, the negative wire, leaving the load... this was not recognized, purposefully, by the patent examiner evaluating the patent. Because they teach different in the educational system as we all know.

So where does this leave us now? Are we going to concede that those who are taught that the energy used in an electric motor can be captured and reused over and over again and not just for one pass as the universities and schools have lead us to believe?

Perhaps some have wondered how a light build could be used instead of a electric motor and still see the same energy recaptured by the small battery? Here is a shot of a email response taken form Tom Bearden's website. I believe the energy flows from outside the wire and is diverged onto the circuit after the load scatters the energy... Link:The Tom Bearden Website

-Dave Wing

[mbrownn]

Bold text and underlining added to quote.

Taken from...I have set up this page you may review what has been going on in the past three years

The paper to Jerry Decker can be found here... Keely Net Mail List: Re: Negative Resistance discovered??

Here is a snippet, form the email to Jerry Decker from Tom Bearden... Bold text and underlining added to quote.

The diagram, with the test, I posted in my post previous to this one is basic but it does much the same as retroreflection it just does it at a lower frequency, once every 10 minutes... When we manually disconnect the load. The Bedini Tesla Swith or Benitez device does the same thing flip flopping back and forth and taking the AC wave between the negatives.

The point is energy can be reused over and over again repeatedly as it cannot be created or destroyed.

Does anyone know how to read the current going back to the small side battery? Was this not the main issue that the patent office would not recognize even though the small side battery was charging on one wire, the negative wire, leaving the load... this was not recognized, purposefully, by the patent examiner evaluating the patent. Because they teach different in the educational system as we all know.

So where does this leave us now? Are we going to concede that those who are taught that the energy used in an electric motor can be captured and reused over and over again and not just for one pass as the universities and schools have lead us to believe?

Perhaps some have wondered how a light build could be used instead of a electric motor and still see the same energy recaptured by the small battery? Here is a shot of a email response taken form Tom Bearden's website. I believe the energy flows from outside the wire and is diverged onto the circuit after the load scatters the energy... Link:The Tom Bearden Website

-Dave Wing

The problem here is Do we really understand what they are saying here? I would say that most of us dont, or at least not fully, and that is why we all come up with slightly different answers.

Back to what I was saying, electrical energy is calculated from a formula made up of measurements of something that we are not sure of. We cannot sense it like light and heat, so we have to use our instruments that give an indication of the presence of something. All the terms we use are arbitrary because we don't know what it is.

So what do we know? our instruments are able to detect something coming out of a circuit in the same magnitude as it went in while the second instrument can only detect a fraction of it. What ever it is, It is still there, so we can collect and reuse it.

We use analogies to describe it because we have no other ways of describing something we cannot physically detect ourselves.

I don’t worry too much about what it is, but where it is. If I can locate it, I have a better chance of using it.

[jettis]

The problem here is Do we really understand what they are saying here? I would say that most of us dont, or at least not fully, and that is why we all come up with slightly different answers.

Do you not understand what I am saying? If not I can be clearer, if that would help.

-Dave Wing

[Ernst]

Hi Ernst,

I would like you to perform the following tests each in the sequence listed on the diagram. Carry out each run for 10 minutes use a dc load of your choice... That includes a 12 volt light bulb. I am sure you will find it interesting.

I do disagree with your statement "If you convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, then that energy is no longer in your electrical system, so it can not be recycled in that way." Electrical energy does not convert into mechanical energy and get used up... It simply flows through the load and can be recaptured after use. So basically an electric motor is close to a free running device if we stop the current from completing its path back to ground.

-Dave Wing

I will do it in my mind, if that is OK with you. Much quicker and less expensive .
- I close sw-E and motor 5 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the last battery.
- I open sw-E and close sw-D. Motor 4 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the last battery also with 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the last battery is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 2-battery stack has lost 2 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
- I open sw-D and close sw-C. Motor 3 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the 2-battery stack, each battery with 1 unit of energy from the 3-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the 2-battery stack is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 3-battery stack has lost 3 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
.... I guess you can fill in how it will continue and you will end up with the 5-battery stack being drained of 5 units of energy (1 unit for each battery) all other batteries are full.

I know what you were thinking, but you have been misled by the famous Bearden. Current alone usually is no energy, you need a current and a voltage difference.
I say 'usually' because there is an exception to this rule: eddie-currents.

You may not agree with me (yet), but that time will surely come. An electric motor is no free energy device. Wish it were that simple!



Ernst.