3 Battery Generating System

[Iamnuts]

Fact.

Aaron.
The fact is that there is not a proven thing.
If something worked,with the power of the Internet, it would spread. Quicker
than a forest fire in a drought!
However you try,you won’t get past Newton.
Skeptics,like Turion,who don’t believe in simple equations regarding induction
will have a hard job proving said equations are flawed.
Electric generators have two outputs,heat being the enemy. I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
Sincerely John.

[Aaron]

No Conservation of Anything

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!!!

[Mario]

Hi Dave,

why do you even waste your time replying to someone with such limited mindset... Hey maybe i works, maybe not, nevertheless, just saying it can't work is sooooooooooo stupid. How many said a plane can't fly, 'Based on the facts it simply can't be done', right? Actually.... Wright? Lol. Well if the Wright brothers would have listened to the naysayers we wouldn't have airplanes today..... Just ignore them.

Well I haven't given up, I'm still working on my setup as time permits. There's one thing I didn't understand about the magnetic lock neutralisation: how could what you described in the video work, if you have alternating poles on the wheel. Now rewatching it I realized you switched to all N poles on one side and S poles on the other side of the rotor. This is what I'll try next...

Forgot, are the neutralising magnets the same diameter as the cores?

regards,
Mario

[Turion]

Lab

The lab is not in the business of modifying what someone brings in to them for testing. They are in the business of testing devices brought to them. Period. If you want modifications made, you need to do it yourself. I didn't have what I need with me, nor had I reserved adequate time to make modifications and then have testing done. Obviously YOU have never brought anything to an independent lab to be tested.

I gave you the results of the lab test on a specific machine. Multiplying the watts output by a coil pair to a load when identical coil pair are connected to identical loads and being powered AT THE SAME TIME by the machine, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to multiply that result by the six coil pair I had being powered at the same time. They didn't just test that ONE coil. They tested all of them, just one at a time, and that was the AVERAGE result. Some were a bit higher and some a bit lower. But they are meticulous in their reporting of data, and would NOT specify the TOTAL output of the machine because the output to ALL loads was not measured at the same time. You continue to try to twist the truth to YOUR advantage to support YOUR conclusions. Why is that?

I have built several versions of the generator since that time and on MANY occasions I have connected all the coils and run loads, measuring the voltage and amperage to that LARGE load. It just wasn't verified by an "independent lab" in Santa Clara, mostly because I MOVED from San Jose, which is close to that lab in Santa Clara, to a small town 90 miles from Lake Tahoe, Nevada. This machine is too LARGE to fit in the trunk of my car and close the trunk, not to mention being too heavy to load easily. And it is a four hour drive one way to that lab. So I have NOT taken these later versions in to be tested. The only reason I had it tested in the FIRST place was because my wife, who is in intellectual property law and believes the changes I have made constitute greater than a 5% change, which is required when attempting to patent a device, and someone else holds a similar patent, wanted to make sure we really HAD something before we put out the $20,000 for a patent. This may seem a larger amount than a NORMAL patent would cost, but we have had plenty of advise from legal counsel that any attempt to patent a "free energy" device must meet stringent requirements, including a working prototype and demonstration to patent examiners. I have had interest in investing millions in this device, but I made the decision to disclose it all here. MY MISTAKE. But not one I really regret since this is already outdated tech and I have moved on. That is ANOTHER reason I have a hard time spending time PROVING anything to YOU when I have more pressing things that need further development, and any free time I have I would be prioritize toward THAT rather than spending any time proving something to someone who won't build it for themselves, and probably wouldn't build it anyway.

I'm not going to argue this with you any more. You obviously have nothing to contribute here and are just attempting to waste as much of my time as possible. You get to have the last word, so go for it. I have said pretty much all I have to say on this topic and given away all I intend to give away to unappreciative individuals such as yourself. I DO intend to take a few minutes when I can find some time and go through exactly how to build this machine in an instructional video for those who have a sincere interest.

[bistander]

Ever think about....

Iamnuts,

If you got “hyped up” by someone singing the praises of John Bedini, it wasn’t me. I built some of Johns stuff and had success with most everything I built, but it became clear to me very early that there was much John didn’t tell us that impacted the success of the system you built. What I came to understand was that unless you were prepared to spend some time doing serious research on your own, you would NOT be successful. I sincerely appreciate John and EVERYTHING he shared, and if not for him, I probably wouldn’t know what I know today. But all John EVER provided was an opportunity to learn and explore in new directions. His work was NEVER a destination. It was a sign post along the way providing direction. And I am pretty sure, having spoken to Peter Lindemann on occasion, that is exactly what John intended for it to be.

As for “proving” my point. I have proven it to the only people that matter to me. All I have offered everybody else, the supposed “researchers” out there is an opportunity and a path to follow. If you choose not to, that’s up to you. I know what I know. You believe what you believe. You cannot “KNOW” this machine does not work until you have built it and had it fail. I, on the other hand, have built many, many successful versions of this machine, two of which have been tested by the same independent lab in Santa Clara, CA. On the first test, the input of the machine was verified, as to both voltage and amps. The rpm of the machine was verified. They would not verify the TOTAL output of the machine as I had each group of two coils hooked to a separate load, and they did not have adequate testing equipment to verify the output to six different loads all at the same time so would only verify the output of a single coil. I have taken the liberty of multiplying that result by six for my conclusions as to the total output of the machine. On the second test the input was verified and this time I had the coil output connected to run one large load, but before the test was run there were technical problems- the rotor coming loose and rubbing against the stator, and we had to abort the test. As it was going to take too long to rectify that issue, we decided to fix it and go back. At that point I determined a design change was needed, and I have not been back since that was implemented. There have been two major design changes since then, but no further testing. The original machine ran at 2800 rpm and put out 150 watts out of one coil. I discovered that by reducing the diameter of the magnets from 2” to 1” it reduced the output of the coil by about 25%. But if I doubled the thickness of the magnet, I was able to get almost the exact same coil output. The difference being that I was later able to DOUBLE the number of magnets on the rotor from six to 12. Do the math. I have. I can also run the machine at higher than 2800 rpm which increases the output. So I absolutely KNOW what the generator is capable of. And I intend to enjoy the fantasy world I live in while you continue to whine about no free energy.

So it never occurred to you guys to wire all the coils in parallel and connect to the load consisting of the individual loads wired in parallel and put the lab's power analyzer across the connection from the coils to the load bank? I mean surely the lab had hook-up wire and wire nuts or splices.

So you never have seen your generator take in a measured 300 watts and output a instrument verified output of 2000 watts simultaneously.

And a not single replication with a builder willing to share a test showing over unity.

OK,

bi

[Turion]

Wrong

Iamnuts,

If you got “hyped up” by someone singing the praises of John Bedini, it wasn’t me. I built some of Johns stuff and had success with most everything I built, but it became clear to me very early that there was much John didn’t tell us that impacted the success of the system you built. What I came to understand was that unless you were prepared to spend some time doing serious research on your own, you would NOT be successful. I sincerely appreciate John and EVERYTHING he shared, and if not for him, I probably wouldn’t know what I know today. But all John EVER provided was an opportunity to learn and explore in new directions. His work was NEVER a destination. It was a sign post along the way providing direction. And I am pretty sure, having spoken to Peter Lindemann on occasion, that is exactly what John intended for it to be.

As for “proving” my point. I have proven it to the only people that matter to me. All I have offered everybody else, the supposed “researchers” out there is an opportunity and a path to follow. If you choose not to, that’s up to you. I know what I know. You believe what you believe. You cannot “KNOW” this machine does not work until you have built it and had it fail. I, on the other hand, have built many, many successful versions of this machine, two of which have been tested by the same independent lab in Santa Clara, CA. On the first test, the input of the machine was verified, as to both voltage and amps. The rpm of the machine was verified. They would not verify the TOTAL output of the machine as I had each group of two coils hooked to a separate load, and they did not have adequate testing equipment to verify the output to six different loads all at the same time so would only verify the output of a single coil. I have taken the liberty of multiplying that result by six for my conclusions as to the total output of the machine. On the second test the input was verified and this time I had the coil output connected to run one large load, but before the test was run there were technical problems- the rotor coming loose and rubbing against the stator, and we had to abort the test. As it was going to take too long to rectify that issue, we decided to fix it and go back. At that point I determined a design change was needed, and I have not been back since that was implemented. There have been two major design changes since then, but no further testing. The original machine ran at 2800 rpm and put out 150 watts out of one coil. I discovered that by reducing the diameter of the magnets from 2” to 1” it reduced the output of the coil by about 25%. But if I doubled the thickness of the magnet, I was able to get almost the exact same coil output. The difference being that I was later able to DOUBLE the number of magnets on the rotor from six to 12. Do the math. I have. I can also run the machine at higher than 2800 rpm which increases the output. So I absolutely KNOW what the generator is capable of. And I intend to enjoy the fantasy world I live in while you continue to whine about no free energy.

[Iamnuts]

For the record.

Ive Been looking at this subject for years now. Initially I was hyped up by
this guy singing the praises of John Bedini.
After loads of reading and buying parts I had to come to the conclusion that
I wasn’t even going to be able to prove a single mwh of free energy.
I’ve never seen any example of anything that works but I have seen many
misguided souls and many hoaxes too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d just love to see someone develop a working device.
The thing is that if the rules could be bent you’d find the effect creeping in
to everything we try and do. For an example, when a space shot fails there’s
an investigation and they always find a cause or causes. They don’t give the
reason as being due to some sort of anomaly in the physical constants such
as “the speed of light slowed down”.
Anyways, just dig out the generator and prove the point and I’m sure that
even the bistander will congratulate the one who succeeds.
Good luck!
John.

[bistander]

More BS

So THAT is the whole issue, that I should, according to YOU and modern electrical theory, need more than 300 watts to turn the generator under load? Achieving that is the ENTIRE POINT of the TWO modifications I have made to the generator.


1.The first thing you need to understand is that there are THREE distinct time periods as a rotor magnet passes a coil. When it is approaching. When it is directly aligned. And when it is leaving. When the rotor magnet approaches the iron in the coil cores it DEFINITELY IS attracted and should therefore cause the motor to speed up a bit as it approaches the coil but slow down as the magnet is leaving the coil, because of attraction of the rotor magnet to the iron it is trying to leave behind. These forces are EQUAL to each other and are a wash. So they don't affect the amp draw of the motor that much. BUT, there is a spit second of time when the magnet is DIRECTLY ALIGNED with the iron core...when it is neither approaching nor leaving. THIS moment of time is when the attraction of the magnet to the iron is at its greatest and most strongly affects the amp draw of the motor. Times this by 12 coils x 6 (or more) magnets per rotation and you have a TREMENDOUS increase in amp draw of the motor. This can be seen by simply bringing a SINGLE COIL into proximity of a rotating rotor that has magnets on it and watching the amp draw of the motor. This magnetic 'LOCK" must be broken before the "leaving" phase can begin. THIS is the moment when my magnet on the stator is directly aligned in repulsion to a magnet on the rotor to NEUTRALIZE or cause an amount of repulsion EQUAL to the amount of attraction between the rotor magnet and the iron core to which it WANTS to "lock" not, but CAN'T because of the opposing magnets, basically giving me a free wheeling rotor. YES, it speeds up a bit as the magnet approaches the iron core and YES it slows down a bit as the magnet tries to move away from the iron core, but I have neutralized the one moment in time that is MOST critical to success.

2. The second thing I have done is wired coils according to the Tesla patent, that are sufficient in capacity such that when the rotor magnets pass at the correct frequency, the magnetic field in the coil that is created is DELAYED long enough that NO opposing magnetic field is created by the coil to REPULSE the approaching magnet, (and therefore no additional amp draw is needed by the motor to FORCE the rotor to turn) and at top dead center, the coil FINALLY achieves that repulsing magnetic filed and pushes AWAY the magnet in the direction of rotation. This is Lenz assisted rotation that actually DECREASES the amp draw necessary to maintain 2800 rpms.

THESE ARE FACTS. That you do not understand them or choose to ignore them only go to show the LIMIT of your understanding of what can be achieved when you begin to understand what is possible.

It BARELY takes any more amps to turn my generator with the coils fully loaded than it did to turn the rotor with NO COILS IN PLACE at all. When will you people understand how SIMPLE this is???? And that it can be done and HAS been done. Not just by ME, but by inventors over the last 150 years. Nothing here is NEW. Everything I know about the principles necessary to this generator I know from doing RESEARCH and reading old patents. Both the delayed Lenz and the magnetic neutralization can be found in DIFFERENT patents over the years, so it is ALL in the public domain. All I did was COMBINE both principles into ONE machine and then work to perfect the mechanics of how to make the results happen MOST efficiently.

Build it or don't. That you choose to ignore and ridicule something so simple and obvious speaks volumes for your actual knowledge, research ability and character. I have done what I can to bring this to your attention. Build it or don't. I really couldn't give a crap whether you have this or not. I felt a responsibility to TRY and bring this forward, and will continue to do so, but from now on I am just going to ignore the ones who refuse to listen. Every SINGLE thing I have stated above is true and can be proven by a CHILD who is willing to do the research. You don't need to build my entire generator. You need a single rotor with several BIG POWERFUL neo magnets on it and one PROPERLY wound coil.

You guys with your charts and formulas and facts as you know them. Your kind proved that planes can't fly too. You cannot convince someone like ME who has seen it work with my own eyes that it doesn't work. Good luck with trying. LOL

Turion,

Been through cogging with you. You don't get it. It is insignificant at load.

Delayed Lenz. No such thing. Show me one commercial generator using this or one recognized scientific paper describing it.

But so what? I am not interested in the internal details. Just show me the final product producing 2000 watts of power while requiring only 300 watts input. You can not. Never could. Never will.

bi

[Iamnuts]

Lens.

Lens law is just a prediction.

[Turion]

Generator

So THAT is the whole issue, that I should, according to YOU and modern electrical theory, need more than 300 watts to turn the generator under load? Achieving that is the ENTIRE POINT of the TWO modifications I have made to the generator.


1.The first thing you need to understand is that there are THREE distinct time periods as a rotor magnet passes a coil. When it is approaching. When it is directly aligned. And when it is leaving. When the rotor magnet approaches the iron in the coil cores it DEFINITELY IS attracted and should therefore cause the motor to speed up a bit as it approaches the coil but slow down as the magnet is leaving the coil, because of attraction of the rotor magnet to the iron it is trying to leave behind. These forces are EQUAL to each other and are a wash. So they don't affect the amp draw of the motor that much. BUT, there is a spit second of time when the magnet is DIRECTLY ALIGNED with the iron core...when it is neither approaching nor leaving. THIS moment of time is when the attraction of the magnet to the iron is at its greatest and most strongly affects the amp draw of the motor. Times this by 12 coils x 6 (or more) magnets per rotation and you have a TREMENDOUS increase in amp draw of the motor. This can be seen by simply bringing a SINGLE COIL into proximity of a rotating rotor that has magnets on it and watching the amp draw of the motor. This magnetic 'LOCK" must be broken before the "leaving" phase can begin. THIS is the moment when my magnet on the stator is directly aligned in repulsion to a magnet on the rotor to NEUTRALIZE or cause an amount of repulsion EQUAL to the amount of attraction between the rotor magnet and the iron core to which it WANTS to "lock", but CAN'T because of the opposing magnets, basically giving me a free wheeling rotor. YES, it speeds up a bit as the magnet approaches the iron core and YES it slows down a bit as the magnet tries to move away from the iron core, but I have neutralized the one moment in time that is MOST critical to success.

2. The second thing I have done is wired coils according to the Tesla patent, that are sufficient in capacity such that when the rotor magnets pass at the correct frequency, the magnetic field in the coil that is created is DELAYED long enough that NO opposing magnetic field is created by the coil to REPULSE the approaching magnet, (and therefore no additional amp draw is needed by the motor to FORCE the rotor to turn) and at top dead center, the coil FINALLY achieves that repulsing magnetic filed and pushes AWAY the magnet in the direction of rotation. This is Lenz assisted rotation that actually DECREASES the amp draw necessary to maintain 2800 rpms.

THESE ARE FACTS. That you do not understand them or choose to ignore them only go to show the LIMIT of your understanding of what can be achieved when you begin to understand what is possible.

It BARELY takes any more amps to turn my generator with the coils fully loaded than it did to turn the rotor with NO COILS IN PLACE at all. When will you people understand how SIMPLE this is???? And that it can be done and HAS been done. Not just by ME, but by inventors over the last 150 years. Nothing here is NEW. Everything I know about the principles necessary to this generator I know from doing RESEARCH and reading old patents. Both the delayed Lenz and the magnetic neutralization can be found in DIFFERENT patents over the years, so it is ALL in the public domain. All I did was COMBINE both principles into ONE machine and then work to perfect the mechanics of how to make the results happen MOST efficiently.

Build it or don't. That you choose to ignore and ridicule something so simple and obvious speaks volumes for your actual knowledge, research ability and character. I have done what I can to bring this to your attention. Build it or don't. I really couldn't give a crap whether you have this or not. I felt a responsibility to TRY and bring this forward, and will continue to do so, but from now on I am just going to ignore the ones who refuse to listen. Every SINGLE thing I have stated above is true and can be proven by a CHILD who is willing to do the research. You don't need to build my entire generator. You need a single rotor with several BIG POWERFUL neo magnets on it and one PROPERLY wound coil. And by the way, ANY coil can work as a lenz assisted coil at the proper frequency. You just have to understand what is going on and how to make it happen.

You guys with your charts and formulas and facts as you know them. Your kind proved that planes can't fly too. You cannot convince someone like ME who has seen it work with my own eyes that it doesn't work. Good luck with trying. LOL

[Iamnuts]

This does.

One of the aspects of electromagnetic induction is length contraction, where the faster something moves, the shorter it gets in the axis it’s moving in.

When the electrons move in a wire, in our frame of reference, the protons are staying still in the wire, while the electrons are moving, which means the length the electrons will ever so slightly contract. Because of that, the neutral wire with a 1:1 ratio of protons and electrons, turn to something like a 1:2 ration of protons to electrons respectively.
This is probably an over simplification but it does give a sort of idea of what’s
happening in a generator. Unfortunately there’s not much one can do to alter
scenario.
John.

[bistander]

Physics

...

There is absolutely NOTHING in physics that 'describes in detail" why my generator won't work. There CAN'T be. Because it works.

...

I think this covers it in detail.

Conservation Laws

bi

[bistander]

Just simple proof... All I ask

Hi there bi,

I was wondering how long it would take you to stick your nose in. After all, that's all you're good for. You won't build it, so sticking your nose in and opening your mouth is all you can contribute. And you're right about one thing, you are spouting the same old BS.

Don't blame me for the problems of the world. I have contributed a solution here. It's not my fault that so many choose to listen to someone like YOU instead of me.

There is absolutely NOTHING in physics that 'describes in detail" why my generator won't work. There CAN'T be. Because it works.

AS I asked before, which of the claims I make about this generator do you believe are false?
1. That a generator can be built that produces 2000 watts? (That would be 12 coils producing about 136 volts at 1.2 amps each)
2. That it can be turned by a motor running on 24 volts at 12-13 amps (around 300 watts) If this is your choice, it would be the correct one, because this is where modern generators FAIL.
3. Or that 70% or better of the 300 watts can be recovered. (3 battery system) And this isn't even NECESSARY with a machine this big because of the inputs and outputs. Just use a stock motor and run it off a couple batteries and live with the losses you have because of the GAINS you are getting. Unless you are like ME and just LOVE running stuff nearly for free.

Speak up. I can explain how to do it in terms even YOU can understand bi. But I know your responses. You don't want an explanation of how to do it, you want it done for you and proven before you can be bothered to do the research, because that's the kind of researcher you are. No exploration or discovery, just "researching" things that have already been proven work.

Turion,

I have read your explanations before. They don't make sense. That is why I want to actually see it or see proof of it.

1) Of course a generator capable of 2000 watts electrical power output can be built. There are likely millions of them. What is impossible is to produce that 2000 watts of power output while delivering only 300 watts of input power to the generator.

2) A generator rated at 2000 watts can be turned with a motor using only 300 watts BUT NOT while it is delivering the 2000 watts of output power. It takes very little power to turn a generator which has little or no load.

3) Your power recovery BS is a strawman tactic. Just more smoke and mirrors. Don't need to go there. Just show me 1 & 2.

It appears that you don't consider a machine which outputs 2000 watts while needing only 300 watts of input to produce "free" power. More bad math?

bi

[Turion]

bi2

Iamnuts,
Are you related to bi, or are you bi in disguise?
I am so glad you understand physics and are such an expert. But as far as this generator goes, you don't know squat. Have a BEAUTIFUL day!

[Turion]

Lol

Hi there bi,

I was wondering how long it would take you to stick your nose in. After all, that's all you're good for. You won't build it, so sticking your nose in and opening your mouth is all you can contribute. And you're right about one thing, you are spouting the same old BS.

Don't blame me for the problems of the world. I have contributed a solution here. It's not my fault that so many choose to listen to someone like YOU instead of me.

There is absolutely NOTHING in physics that 'describes in detail" why my generator won't work. There CAN'T be. Because it works.

AS I asked before, which of the claims I make about this generator do you believe are false?
1. That a generator can be built that produces 2000 watts? (That would be 12 coils producing about 136 volts at 1.2 amps each)
2. That it can be turned by a motor running on 24 volts at 12-13 amps (around 300 watts) If this is your choice, it would be the correct one, because this is where modern generators FAIL.
3. Or that 70% or better of the 300 watts can be recovered. (3 battery system) And this isn't even NECESSARY with a machine this big because of the inputs and outputs. Just use a stock motor and run it off a couple batteries and live with the losses you have because of the GAINS you are getting. Unless you are like ME and just LOVE running stuff nearly for free.

Speak up. I can explain how to do it in terms even YOU can understand bi. But I know your responses. You don't want an explanation of how to do it, you want it done for you and proven before you can be bothered to do the research, because that's the kind of researcher you are. No exploration or discovery, just "researching" things that have already been proven work.