Bedini style generator for peer review cop10-plus

[RAMSET]

Jules made a correction to above documents
quote
Just a quick note to say that I have corrected a couple of typos and a wrong figure in Table 7 (p37) of the Manual and have replaced the file for downloading as required.
end quote

respectfully submitted
Chet K

EDIT for more info on Component access

To aid in acquiring components, I have provided a BOM using Farnell as a reference for item order numbers. For those items that can't be got on there, I have provided links to other sources.

I attach this document but it is also now in the 'PCB Files' folder on the main link.

Julian
BOM_PF Generator PCB V4.pdf (142.38 kB - downloaded 2 times.)

[RAMSET]

Julian updated topic
quote
Hi all,

Contrary to expectations, I have now managed to complete the installation of the replication PCB and checked it against all the diagnostic checks in the manual, about 2 weeks earlier than expected. The extra time I had assigned for potential problems was not needed and so the manual and associated appendices are now complete together with the Gerber files with some minor adjustments to the PCB.

All the files are uploaded to the Mega link given earlier: https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ

and also to this Dropbox link at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/td55b8675...cFUT2T07a?dl=0

I’m sure questions and comments will arise but I will address any in batches rather than every few days or so.

There’s still plenty to do besides the power tests due to start in a few weeks, such as preparing a discussion paper for how to prove that the ‘consumption’ of the electrolyte is not the source of the measured energy gains.

Believing it isn’t is a long way from the evidence that it isn’t and this question is pretty much as important as showing an energy gain in the first place, and for which the upcoming power tests hopefully will give the much-needed confirmation.

Onwards

Julian
end quote

respectfully submitted
Chet K
ps
link to Julian’s thread above
and as mentioned already ..there is a link in his topic to this thread.

[RAMSET]

Update from Julian
“quote
I agree that a CoP of 53 is very large and I now think that some of that is due to the Battery Management System installed in Lithium batteries that is interfering with the measurement process. However, even if it is that high that doesn't mean high power levels as that depends on the energy applied to the generator and also the time involved in the charging process. In this case, it would be more like 200W.

As I have repeatedly said, the power tests have yet to be done to confirm useful power and you are right in that full proof of useable energy is not yet there from my work. CoP results are only a part of the story and the manual I am writing will just allow someone to replicate them. Once the power tests are done in early 2023 then I will update the manual. I have only written the manual at this stage due to various requests to be able to replicate my findings and, in some cases, to improve on peoples' builds that already exist.

I am posting another report here from using capacitors instead of a battery that shows that the battery chemistry is fundamental to the energy gain process. Now, this can mean either of two things - one that the electrochemistry is itself the 'fuel' for this process and so over time the battery will decline in its normal function or, secondly that the chemistry is a necessary and important intermediary in an energetic process and pathway yet to be determined.

Further tests will need to be devised to sort that lot out.
Interim Report 2 (Using Capacitors).pdf (5493.19 kB - downloaded 20 times.)

end Quote

Link to topic
https://overunity.com/19286/an-energ...msg572311/#new
there is a link back to this topic posted at OU.com thread

respectfully submitted
Chet K

[bistander]

Sir
quite certain all manner of testing will be accepted

peer review is a very big part of the scientific method,
typically to run towards scrutiny …with gratitude!


Thanks for your suggestion, your sincere input
and experience are always appreciated!
respectfully
Chet K
PS
i believe you already shared this at Julian’s topic ?
and there is also a link back to this thread !

Hi Chet K,
yes, I posted the suggestion there a month ago. There have been numerous times I have suggested experimenters conduct simple test to demonstrate or prove their claims. Mostly easy, free, short, non destructive tests. Seldon happens. And that is unfortunate.
bi

[RAMSET]

Sir
quite certain all manner of testing will be accepted

peer review is a very big part of the scientific method,
typically to run towards scrutiny …with gratitude!


Thanks for your suggestion, your sincere input
and experience are always appreciated!
respectfully
Chet K
PS
i believe you already shared this at Julian’s topic ?
and there is also a link back to this thread !

[bistander]

Hello RAMSET,

My suggested test would be enlightening. It wouldn't take long. Why not do it?
bi

Quote from: bistander on November 06, 2022, 09:07:37 PM To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.

If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi

[RAMSET]

Julian has added links ( which I am uncertain will attach here )
seems all is progressing.. albeit with hindrance from postal strike in UK!
Topic link below ( there is a link there pointing here too)

https://overunity.com/19286/an-energ...msg572138/#new
Snip”
Julian
quote
Hi all,

Just to update you regarding the replication manual that I am preparing for those who would like to replicate my device and findings.

The manual explaining in depth how to replicate the device is almost ready at approaching 80 pages and around 25,000 words, plus additional material in Appendices, including various relevant research papers.

The new PCB v4 has been received and is under construction but ongoing postal strikes here are delaying the arrival of a few components that are required to complete the circuit build. Until I have done that then I can’t finalize the text of some parts of the manual, for example, the diagnostics section.

So generally everything is coming along fine but I won’t make the manual 'live' until the PCB has been completed, installed, and checked. Nevertheless, I am providing the link to the folders below so that you can explore the additional material and the research papers while awaiting the manual and PCB files. I also attach a photo of the new board being assembled and screen grabs of the front cover and contents of the manual. I am hoping it will be up before Xmas and if not then soon after.

So here is the link to the replication folders and where, for the time being, the 'Manual' and the 'PCB Files' folders are empty.

https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ

For those who are dubious of the CoPs so far obtained then the full methodology is provided in the Manual. Power tests are soon to follow and where the maximum power demand that can be sustained by the system, with battery swapping enabled, will be undertaken such that neither battery drops its voltage below its starting value. Even though these further validating tests are not yet done, the approach is laid out in the Manual. Not too long to wait now but it depends on the postal strikes.


Julian


Cover page.jpg (141.51 kB, 547x750 - viewed 43 times.)

Contents page.jpg (105.29 kB, 546x750 - viewed 43 times.)

PCB v4 Assembly.jpg (179.05 kB, 750x422 - viewed 41 times.)

end quote

respectfully submitted
Chet K

[RAMSET]

Thaelin
yes
there was an issue which was mentioned by Julian
here
https://overunity.com/19286/an-energ...ng-project/15/

Julian
quote post 17 below

My original link is being ‘neutralised’ by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it’s under 15MB.

I should have my ‘suggestions’ doc ready today (uk time).

A quick comment about ‘looping’. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc ‘Load Testing’ where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.

For those who haven’t read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate ’level of confidence’.

I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.

Anyway here are the two main docs I’m sharing at this time. Another will come later today.

J
Interim Report (Forum).pdf (9383.62 kB - downloaded 58 times.)
Load Testing.pdf (494.94 kB - downloaded 75 times.)


Julian
quote post # 18 below
Ok, so here as promised I attach a document with my suggestions as to how to improve on, or obtain, a CoP>1 with a pulsed flyback type of generator. It is based on my practical experience from the last 3 years in particular and I hope it will give some inspiration to those who might be stuck with how to move forward.

As using links in posts on here seems to be a bit problematic, there is a link at the end of the attached doc that will take you to a set of folders on my Mega account. There are all the files I have uploaded so far and a lot more. This is all I am willing to share at this time but it should serve the aforementioned purpose.

I expect my next contribution will be some data from increasing the peak spike voltage using other active components and some highlights from the power test data in the spring and of course, any paper I get published as and when that happens.

As I have a lot to get on with, I won’t be contributing regularly to the forum. A bit like a flyback pulse, I have injected a lot of energy in a short space of time and now need to move back while it does whatever it does

I expect I will look in every so often and address any major points but otherwise, keep on with your own unique journeys of discovery and hold to the belief that there is a much bigger world out there than we, as a society, have yet been able, or willing, to reveal.

Suggestions for an effective generator.pdf (145.04 kB - downloaded 112 times.)

End quote

thanks for looking
BTW
I have placed a link back to this topic at Julian’s thread at OU.com
respectfully
Chet K

[thaelin]

File link no longer available.

[RAMSET]

mirror topic of open source project
from Julian Perry UK

https://overunity.com/19286/an-energ...sting-project/
Julian
quote

Hi all,

For the last three years, I have been working to obtain unequivocal evidence that a Bedini-style generator can harvest energy from the local environment. In particular, as someone who trained and worked as a scientist and a science teacher in the UK and is now retired, my aim is to present clear evidence of the harvesting phenomenon and to publish that data in a suitable scientific journal. So far I have found nothing in the mainstream literature addressing this specific topic, probably in part for fear of ridicule.

To this end, I have built a ‘Pulsed Flyback Generator’ and spent a large part of this year testing it with regard to a range of variables that can affect its performance. Up to this point, I have focused on measuring its CoP and finding out the optimum settings for best-charging performance.

The testing is not complete in that I have yet to undertake power tests that bring any hidden factors to bear, and these tests will add further weight and confirmation to the CoP data already obtained.

My aim in all this is not to bring some form of generator to market but rather, as a ‘curiosity-driven’ project, to show the scientific community clear evidence that energy can be extracted from the ‘environment’ by an open electronic system. Particularly for many electrical engineers, an open system does not compute and the notion of using the term CoP outside of heat transfer is anathema.

What good data there is has usually been kept within the walls of interested groups and forums like this. However, with my aged links to the ‘establishment’ and universities, my long-term aim is to get further replication done and add weight to the issue of open systems and energy extraction from the quantum vacuum, what Tesla and others have referred to as radiant energy.

My project does not directly examine where the energy comes from and the mechanisms involved (such as vacuum biasing) but it is of course natural to speculate. In my view, the only viable source of the energy gain is the quantum vacuum and I’m in contact with Tom Valone and others in the US on that aspect. It will probably require a specially designed experimental setup to investigate that hypothesis but in the meantime, my own view is that the theories of Ilya Prigogine on ‘far from equilibrium’ states and negative entropy as well as the Geometrodynamics of John Wheeler are relevant in this phenomenon.

I plan to write the scientific paper at the start of the new year largely based on the power tests that are soon to start. Due to the much better than expected performance, I need to upgrade the PCB, and in particular the relays, to cope with currents up to 20A instead of the 3A originally designed for. Meanwhile, I have written various documents presenting the evidence so far and, while I am keen not to risk interfering with the evidence related to the forthcoming paper, I am happy to provide a link to one interim report (not written in scientific paper format) showing the methodology, equipment and evidence of some of the CoP values obtained so far. This might provide some inspiration to others who are embarking on this journey.

If there is one overarching finding I would state after all my work then it is this: one needs to optimize all the factors based on the unique properties of a specific build. The factors so far tested include PWM PRF and duty cycle, coil voltage (i.e. number of batteries in series), battery capacity and chemistry, charging point on the charging profile, and the battery swap interval.

With my build designed to allow for the testing of all these variables, when these are optimized, then I have now reached CoPs of more than 10 (compared to around 2-3 when not optimized) using HV pulses of a little over 1kV applied directly to the battery. When towards the end of this year I get to increase the peak HV towards 2kV (by changing some active components) the results are likely to increase significantly. These values translate to power levels of 100-200W which is a modest output but scientifically speaking highly significant.

Since the pdf file is 9MB and can't be attached to this post, here is a link to my Mega account and one document that I’m happy to share at this time. Others will follow as and when my paper is published next year.

https://mega.nz/file/1YVhlaBJ#yJDmYb...YDIRczxxz9fUt8

I’m not going to distract myself with too much discussion here about it as I’m rather busy but I will respond to some significant points or feedback. I felt prompted to present this now as we head into a difficult winter for many, not least for reasons of energy availability!

Blessings

Julian