Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3 Battery Generating System

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turion
    replied
    Ferrite

    Matt sent me some for testing that he has a source for.

    I found some on Amazon
    https://www.amazon.com/Black-Iron-Ox...ateway&sr=8-10

    I haven't tested EITHER one yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cadman
    replied
    ferrite

    Hi Turion,

    I'm casting some cores for testing and I recall you saying you have obtained the ferrite for your own cores.

    I have a source for inexpensive high grade iron powder here in the US but am having difficulty finding the ferrite powder.

    Can you help a fellow out and point me in the right direction please?

    Thanks
    Cadman

    Leave a comment:


  • mobigozer
    replied
    Amen

    Originally posted by Aaron View Post
    IAMNUTS & BISTANDER -

    Both of you appear to either be willfully ignorant or are simply dedicated to spreading propaganda against that which is true.

    Let's take Jim Murray's SERPS example - besides the COP 50.0 demo shown at my conference, it was done in a way that cannot be disputed. With a measured amount of gasoline on a gasoline/generator set, it powered 1000-1500 watts of bulbs yet it ran just as long as it did if it was idling with no load at all. How?

    If you can muster all the focus and mind power at your disposal to see a tiny little concept, you just may comprehend something that flushes all your nonsensical beliefs down the drain.

    As the electricity from the generator leaves and powers a resistive load, the load of bulbs or heating elements are powered to create heat or light or both - then what remains is captured on the back side of the load in capacitors and is then sent back through the load powering the load twice with the same electricity and that electricity is stepped up in voltage as it is delivered back to the generator. What does that do???

    The first thing to get through your heads is the fact that electricity is not "consumed" when it powers the load - otherwise, there is nothing to capture in the capacitors on the backside of the load and we know there is. Even conventional science has demonstrated that fact . I posted an article on that peer-reviewed paper quite a while back.

    With the SERPS - the circuit turns the generator into a motor with the stepped up voltage causing it to unload the motor so every other quarter of the AC sinewave, the motor has a load and every other cycle the motor is motored by the generator negating the load. So if the generator is generating 50% of the time and is motoring 50% of the time, there is no net load on the generator while 1000-15000 watts of bulbs are being lit up - yet, the motor is idling that is turning the generator. That is one of many methods of unloading a generator so that it can produce electricity so the prime mover doesn't see the load. Turion shared another.

    What other ways can we negate the load that the prime mover sees when it turns a generator that is powering something? With SERPS, it over-voltages the generator so that it is a periodic motor, which in turn unloads the motor turning it. It takes but only a bit of common sense to understand that concept. It's not theoretical - it works in spite of your beliefs in the conservation of energy, etc.

    The conservation of energy concept is a distraction for fools as it has no relation to reality. When work is done in an electrical, chemical, mechanical or other system, 100% of the potential that was used to do work is dissipated back into the environment. NOTHING is conserved. The only thing that happened in a cyclic system such as the 3 battery system with a PULSED motor is that a NEW potential difference is created for fresh new potential to enter to do more work. NONE of the new work was done by anything that was erroneously believed to be conserved, it was done by establishing a new potential difference or dipole so that NEW, FRESH potential comes into the system to do more work.

    The idea of conservation of energy is nothing more than a brainwashing mechanism to distract people from understanding there is infinite potential available at any two points of potential difference form the aether. A belief in conservation of energy makes the reality of infinite available potential unnecessary and that is the only purpose it serves - a subversive, propaganda tool so nobody ever sees that you don't have to conserve anything when there is potential available at any two points of charge separation that is freely available from space itself.

    If you lift an object, you are NOT storing any potential in the object at a certain height. 100% of everything you used to lift the object is dissipated back to the ambient background environment at the peak of the lift. You CANNOT store anything you just used up!!! You only created a new potential difference between the object and another point of reference - the ground for example. It is said that you get out of it what you put in - that is just ignorance. What you get out of the lift of an object is the lift of the object in and of itself - what work is done afterward is SEPARATE from what you expended to lift it!!

    MGH (mass x gravity x height) does NOT tell you how much potential energy is stored in the object. MGH only tells you how much potential energy that the dynamic and moving downward flowing non-static gravitational potential will be realized when the object can be released to fall to the ground. Then when it hits, it will be equal to the work used to lift it. You put in 1 part then external non-conserved FRESH NEW gravitational potential supplies the input to do an equivalent amount of work. You put in 1, gravity puts in 1 so you have 2 units of work that are measurable with 2nd grade mathematics and 7th grade equations that shows a 200% gain in total work input to the system. Why?

    Because there is no such thing as conservation of energy. It doesn't exist, never has, doesn't and never will. In EVERY cyclic system, energy is dissipated on one cycle and 100% is dissipated back to the environment and a NEW potential difference is established. Then NEW, FRESH potential enters because of the NEW potential difference to do more work. NONE of that work in the 2nd cycle comes from the original input - meaning, nothing was conserved.

    Newton's Cradle is the perfect example of violating conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. You lift one ball on one end and let go, it hits with a certain amount of loss - the remainder lifts the ball on the other end and that is where your input energy is 100% terminated and where the momentum from your input is 100% terminated as well! All you did was establish a NEW potential difference so that gravity comes in, pushes on the ball down and it hits another ball with some loss and the other end a ball goes up where 100% of that energy and momentum is 100% extinguished! No conservation of momentum or energy is demonstrated - it is the exact opposite!!!

    That does't mean automatically that Newton's Cradle is a free energy device - instead, what it does mean and what it clearly demonstrates for those who have eyes to see is that there is no conservation of energy or momentum and on EACH CYCLE, NEW potential enters to do more work meaning that conservation principles are not only unnecessary but are completely ludicrous. It only serves to hide the FACT that free, unlimited potential is available at any point and it can be tapped at any two points of potential difference to do work.

    The work done in a cyclic system after the initial input is related to our input, but is NOT directly proportional to it so the output can absolutely exceed the input. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar, con and ignoramus. RELATED BUT NOT DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mario
    replied
    Originally posted by Aaron View Post
    We can dedicate another thread to this machine. I only brought it up because IF the constant batteries are something that can be used in the 3 battery system, even on the front end, it might be something that has benefit - I don't know.
    Aaron, I created a thread here:

    http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post316647

    cheers,
    Mario

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    battery hookup details

    Originally posted by Mario View Post
    Hi Aaron,

    thanks for the details and pics. If I understand it correctly he had 48Ah on the front and a total of 96 Ah in the back, half of which (the 48 Ah tractor batt) he kept swapping with the front. If he was running the front at the C20 rate, the input should have been in the 2.4A range.
    Do you know at how many amps he was running it? I'm just trying to get the relations of the system.

    I have a few hi amp, fast switching mosfets that are 7 milliohms each, do you think 2 or 3 three in parallel could equal the mechanic switch?

    I think it's interesting to look at these details, I mean, after all these were his advancements from his early 3 battery and Tesla switch systems, right?

    Would be nice to have a similar setup with the machine running at the C20 of the input battery and get a battery bank, double the size of the first, charged up. Even better would be to have the input also at 96 Ah, but still run the machine at a C20 of a 48 Ah battery. You would end up with a machine where you simply swap the two batteries, but half of the input battery (equal to 48 Ah of 96) runs a load...constantly...

    Dave, I don't want to distract from your setup so just shout if you think it's not in line with the thread topic.

    cheers,
    Mario

    Mario,


    No, on the front was a single garden starter battery - those things are ballpark around maybe 12ah. Being starter batteries, they of course don't have an amp hour rating, but ballpark can divide the CCA by 10 and that will give a ballpark. But over all the time using those things, they seem to be around a 12ah just from experience. That was the only thing on the front.



    On the back, it was the 4 x 12v strings of those Korean war batteries that were constants. Those were ballpark around 12ah each for 48ah + another garden starter battery on the back at 12ah for 60ah total.



    12 on front and 60 on back.



    Korean war batteries stayed on the back and never got swapped. Just the garden starter batteries on front and back were swapped back and forth.


    That's around 7-8 watts draw from the front battery at c20 but again a starter battery so the numbers don't exactly work out but close enough for ballpark estimates. The machine probably drew more. With one coil on either side of the rotor - I don't know. I'll measure the draw when I have time. A single coil SG with 7-8 power windings and a trigger draws around 20 watts ballpark. It's probably not too far from that for both coils on either side of the rotor.



    There are ways to mimick the mechanical switch - Paul Babcock's switching circuit is probably the best ever designed, but no, use mechanical. There is something to the mechanical that allows for some extra radiant gains that I don't think can be had with solid state. If you have the Advanced SG book, the details on that switch are given.


    Yes, the 3 battery / Tesla Switch type systems came way before this specific mechanical switch cap dump method I believe. I don't know if I'd look at it in terms of an evolution of what he was looking at - he just wanted to explore all methods possible.



    We can dedicate another thread to this machine. I only brought it up because IF the constant batteries are something that can be used in the 3 battery system, even on the front end, it might be something that has benefit - I don't know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    A word of caution

    On my original rotor I had a half inch thick piece of Delrin with 1/4 inch magnets on each side with just a bit of rotor material in between them. This means the magnets stuck out a bit on each side. Not far, but they still stuck out. Because of the close tolerances of my machine, one or more of those magnets came around and hit something at 3200 rpm and the rotor literally exploded. One magnet went right through the front of my computer and lodged inside where a couple members of this forum who were visiting found it. Another went through my keyboard and I am still finding pieces of keys from that. I am very lucky to still have all my teeth as one two inch magnet shot past my head. I still have holes in my ceiling and there are magnets I haven’t found yet. Possibly they are up in the attic.

    I went to thicker magnets and a thicker rotor and now NO part of the magnet extends beyond the surface of the rotor. But needless to say, I am now a little gun shy about even running that machine. I have definitely increased safety measures including boxing it in so nothing flies out.

    So be SAFE. No persuit of knowledge is worth your life!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mario
    replied
    Hi Aaron,

    thanks for the details and pics. If I understand it correctly he had 48Ah on the front and a total of 96 Ah in the back, half of which (the 48 Ah tractor batt) he kept swapping with the front. If he was running the front at the C20 rate, the input should have been in the 2.4A range.
    Do you know at how many amps he was running it? I'm just trying to get the relations of the system.

    I have a few hi amp, fast switching mosfets that are 7 milliohms each, do you think 2 or 3 three in parallel could equal the mechanic switch?

    I think it's interesting to look at these details, I mean, after all these were his advancements from his early 3 battery and Tesla switch systems, right?

    Would be nice to have a similar setup with the machine running at the C20 of the input battery and get a battery bank, double the size of the first, charged up. Even better would be to have the input also at 96 Ah, but still run the machine at a C20 of a 48 Ah battery. You would end up with a machine where you simply swap the two batteries, but half of the input battery (equal to 48 Ah of 96) runs a load...constantly...

    Dave, I don't want to distract from your setup so just shout if you think it's not in line with the thread topic.

    cheers,
    Mario

    Leave a comment:


  • Netica
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    The black stuff is Delrin. The white stuff Iím not sure. It needs to hold bolts, so must be able to take a thread, but Iím sure there are lots of different plastics that would work.

    Thanks Turion

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    Bedini's Self-Running SG

    Mario,


    Sorry, yes, the driver circuit is a Cole Switch instead of the basic SG circuit. You can see the magnets on the disc on the shaft in the picture for the trigger.


    The clear Korean war batteries are 6v cells - John had glued 2 in series - they had a tongue and groove type of connection to slip the side of one onto the other for 12 volts and 4 of those in parallel. Pic will show 3 in parallel but it was 4 for the full self runner. The capacity was close to the 12v walmart garden batteries - estimated probably around 12ah each 12v set for about 48ah ballpark estimate.



    The caps were 3 x 1 Farad for 333,333 uf at whatever voltage. Those were extremely leaky caps, but they'd get charged to around maybe 3 volts above the battery voltage like you mentioned.



    The 4 parallel 12v batts on the back end would immediately bring the 1 swapped battery up in voltage really quick.



    The caps discharged with a mechanical switch - brass or copper rods that were inserted into the periphery of the delrin discs. They may have been silver solder coated with carbon brushes. Any other variation had too high of a voltage drop. When the caps discharged, since the batteries were already up really high, the caps only needed to charge up a few volts since when they discharged, they obviously never fully discharged and only went down so much. The discharge timing was controlled by the pulley method and was at a rate of about 1 time per second.



    The front and back battery was the Walmart garden starter battery type - cheap and junky but goes to show what is possible. One on the front and one on the back in parallel with 4 x 12v strings of the Korean war batteries. There is nothing special about those batteries - they were probably lower quality than the Walmart starter batteries and only had a charging efficiency of 80% if you're lucky.



    These pictures are from Peter Lindemann's collection:







    Can the extra batteries that are constants in the system even be used in the 3 battery system or not is questionable but perhaps someone can think of how to apply that concept if its even possible. In any case, that is how John did it. In the 3rd Advanced book of the SG series, the details on the cap dump switch specifics are all detailed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    SG self running battery swap method by Bedini

    Originally posted by Mario View Post
    Hi Aaron,

    thanks for elaborating. I think with that machine John tried different setups, was the one you are talking about the cap pulser variant with a huge cap switched at about 3 V over the battery, or a 24V cap with a bit smaller caps?
    When he swapped the run down run battery to the position of one of the charge batteries, how did he prevent it from direct directly charging from the other 3 batts?

    I hear you about the low impedance of the batteries being a must, this is probably also one reason why John switched to cap pulsing. A good big cap has a fixed internal impedance...and converts radiant much better.

    When I tried charging batteries directly from the inductive pulses the desulphation took place much faster and they charged faster and faster and to a much higher voltage, but when I ran loads across them, resistive, inductive or capacitive, their capacity somehow seemed to shrink more and more, they were unable to sustain a load for a long time, even with a big cap in front of the load. When I reverted back to cap pulsing, after a few cycles they behaved as normal again, actually much better then normal. But the thing with the inductive charging was weird...

    PS. I believe John's pulser had a Cole switch instead of SG circuit. Do you know the Korean war battery capacity?

    cheers,
    Mario

    Yes, John tried multiple methods with that machine - most were with larger caps.



    He didn't prevent the drained down battery from getting charged up by the topped up ones that stayed on the back.



    If the batteries were charged with the inductive spikes, I think the resistive loads alone were the best use of those batteries and is why with spike charging, John has said that it isn't good to put that on the front of the SG since it's an inductive load.



    Charging caps with this and then dumping is what John called "Forward Conversion" so it took the "negative energy" and turned it positive so that the batteries are just fine for any load and are compatible with any charger. The first 2A12 was a spike charger and after this was all realized, the 2nd generation 2A12 charger up to the 5th gen were all cap dumps.



    "I believe John's pulser had a Cole switch instead of SG circuit. Do you know the Korean war battery capacity?"


    Do you mean pulser for discharging the cap bank to the back end?



    Those batts - I'll have to check.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Material

    The black stuff is Delrin. The white stuff I’m not sure. It needs to hold bolts, so must be able to take a thread, but I’m sure there are lots of different plastics that would work.
    Last edited by Turion; 03-13-2019, 12:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Netica
    replied
    Hi Turion,

    Am interested to know what the black material is that you have used for your rotors.

    Also the white material for the 4 main body supports which make up the motor where the coils fit in.

    Thank you for your help.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mario
    replied
    Originally posted by Aaron View Post
    On the back end, he kept several batteries and not just one to match how many were on the front. Let's say there are 4 - he was using those old clear case batteries from the Korean war - and those are crappy batteries to begin with. If there are 4 on the back and 1 on the front, when the front runs down, he swaps it with one of the batteries on the back, then repeats, it is the same battery position on the back that is swapped while the other 3 stay charged up and do not get swapped.

    He was doing that back around 2002 or so. Not a single battery ever needed to be hooked back to a charger as it literally, kept itself charged up and that was that. It ran so long John got tired of it but that was the best self-running method I think he ever came up with. I saw this and so did Peter.
    Hi Aaron,

    thanks for elaborating. I think with that machine John tried different setups, was the one you are talking about the cap pulser variant with a huge cap switched at about 3 V over the battery, or a 24V cap with a bit smaller caps?
    When he swapped the run down run battery to the position of one of the charge batteries, how did he prevent it from direct directly charging from the other 3 batts?

    I hear you about the low impedance of the batteries being a must, this is probably also one reason why John switched to cap pulsing. A good big cap has a fixed internal impedance...and converts radiant much better.

    When I tried charging batteries directly from the inductive pulses the desulphation took place much faster and they charged faster and faster and to a much higher voltage, but when I ran loads across them, resistive, inductive or capacitive, their capacity somehow seemed to shrink more and more, they were unable to sustain a load for a long time, even with a big cap in front of the load. When I reverted back to cap pulsing, after a few cycles they behaved as normal again, actually much better then normal. But the thing with the inductive charging was weird...

    PS. I believe John's pulser had a Cole switch instead of SG circuit. Do you know the Korean war battery capacity?

    cheers,
    Mario
    Last edited by Mario; 03-11-2019, 11:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    SG battery swap vs Benitez

    Originally posted by Mario View Post
    Hi Aaron,

    I have a question. In his "SG beyond" presentation Peter showed a 3 battery system (24V each) where the 2 series batts run the load into a single battery, and then they get rotated, which is basicallly what John's first 3 battery diagram was showing.
    In Peter's Benitez presentation he showed a 3 battery system (12V each) where 2 series batts run the load into 2 parallel batts (Benitez style) instead of just into one.
    Do you know which one of the 2 setups worked best for him?

    cheers,
    Mario

    Hi Mario,


    I'll elaborate a bit.



    With both, the batteries will eventually go down, but it proves the extended running times and with extended running times, the rated capacity is exceeded, which proves the point. If you get more running time than the total capacity provides at the start, then it is still over 1.0 of course.



    The Benitez on in particular is not to make free energy claims, but was to show the wiring setup and how to connect everything. There may be later demos with more appropriate batteries as time permits.



    It is important to point that that those batteries are all junk Walmart garden starter batteries and are the worse possible ones to use but they still did the job. They're from older project and are badly abused. The Bedini 2A12 did revive them the best they can be but for anyone wanting to get the best results - deep cycles and big ones, not small starter batteries. I'm sure you already know.



    Here is something very important I want to bring up that I was reminded of recently.



    Let's say you have a 10 coiler SG and you put a small 12v battery on the front and charge the same on the back. If the battery is big enough to deliver the current, it will run fine and if you disconnect the output batteries, the neon bulbs will light up since the radiant has to go somewhere.



    If you take the same machine and put very large batteries on it and do the same on the back - run the machine, it's not going to draw more than it did with smaller batteries, but if you unhook the output batteries, the neons won't just flash, every transistor will explode from a pressure explosion because of all the extra radiant available by using the low impedance batteries. Same voltage and same current with small or big 12 v batteries, so why such a violent explosion when using the big ones? That is all the radiant gain that isn't possible with small batteries no matter how good of a build a machine is.



    So just to emphasize, not really to you Mario because you already know, but anyone that thinks the recommendation to use big batteries from David and many others over the years is not that important, it makes ALL the difference in the world between having a machine that just demonstrates some interesting concept vs having a machine where you are able to demonstrate free energy by many hundreds of percent.



    Mario, here is the battery method John Bedini used on a self running SG setup that ran and kept itself charged up, just for a short period of time but indefinitely and it did this better than any other method. This was with the clear plastic wheel SG where the magnets were on the face of the rotor instead of around the peripheral.



    I think it was this machine:






    On the back end, he kept several batteries and not just one to match how many were on the front. Let's say there are 4 - he was using those old clear case batteries from the Korean war - and those are crappy batteries to begin with. If there are 4 on the back and 1 on the front, when the front runs down, he swaps it with one of the batteries on the back, then repeats, it is the same battery position on the back that is swapped while the other 3 stay charged up and do not get swapped.



    He was doing that back around 2002 or so. Not a single battery ever needed to be hooked back to a charger as it literally, kept itself charged up and that was that. It ran so long John got tired of it but that was the best self-running method I think he ever came up with. I saw this and so did Peter.



    So with any variation of the 3 battery methods, there can be extra batteries in parallel so it needs to be tried. If you have a few batteries that are topped up in position #3, then there is less potential difference between 1 & 2 in series, which seems to defeat the purpose, but before I say more, I'll run this by someone on what is the best method to apply this kind of concept here.


    So what works best - I'd say if each had appropriate batteries, then the Benitez one is the one that will perform better but don't quote me on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    3 Battery vs Benitez

    Both will work if you have the right equipment. Both will fail with small batteries. Matt built working Benitez systems YEARS ago. The problem is, per kilowatt hour of energy, solar is CHEAPER.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X