Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

John Bedini Discussion threads relating to John Bedini. Bedini SG, Bedini SSG, Crystal Batteries, etc...

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #181  
Old 06-21-2009, 08:31 PM
linesrg linesrg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
If you have 2 Amps at the output of your SG into your battery, what is the input current into the SG?

Hoppy
Hoppy,

Somebody who knows where I'm coming from!!!

I have yet to see an SG that is more than 40% efficient and I've built a few by the book from a simple 500gm coil upto a full blown 6 coiler and on battery banks up to 1350AHr.

The best that can be said about Bedini charging is that it is very efficient and I don't appreciate people not actually answering straight forward questions.

So Steve I ask again have you tried repeatedly charging (at whatever rate)and discharging your 135AHr battery at the C20 rate over a 2 week period continuously.

Have you been able to demonstrate that you have extracted more from your battery than you put in to the front end of your SG? It is almost impossible to accurately measure the output from an SG charging a battery so don't quote what you think you're measuring.

I have yet to meet anybody who has answered this question with a simple yes. They either come out with flannel or simple refuse to answer the question. There is only one reason for this. They haven't succeeded in extracting more energy from a battery than they put in at the front end.

There is something fundamentally flawed about evaluating OU based on the energy measured out of an SG in to a battery and the energy then extracted from that battery and using that as a basis for determining OU whilst completely ignoring the total energy input to the SG.

This has been put to JB and RF more than once and they have evaded answering the question actually posed on every occasion.

Regards

Richard

It's a simple question and scepticism doesn't come into it.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #182  
Old 06-21-2009, 10:27 PM
dllabarre's Avatar
dllabarre dllabarre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 186
Please stay on topic

Guys/Gals Please stay on topic.

A little deviation is fine but you've milked the efficency, or lack thereof, of the SSG for too long on this thread.

This thread is for people who are replicating the Bedini-Kromrey converter.
When people post non-related posts, over and over, the people who are on topic get their posts buried and questions not answered. Its not fair to the people who are on topic.

Please move the SSG conversation/debate to a more appropriate forum.

Thank you,
DonL
__________________
 

Last edited by dllabarre; 06-22-2009 at 01:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:34 AM
dambit's Avatar
dambit dambit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 493
Send a message via Skype™ to dambit
Hi Don,

I agree.

Richard, in answer to the previous question and last thing I will say about the SG in this thread. Yes! And as I stated earlier (you'll like this part), I feel no need to prove it to anyone.

Cheers,

Steve
__________________
You can view my vids here

http://www.youtube.com/SJohnM81

Last edited by dambit; 06-22-2009 at 07:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 06-22-2009, 03:40 AM
kent_elyue kent_elyue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by baroutologos View Post
Hi at all,

I have been re-reading an old paper from Tom Bearden regarding John Bedini's Kromrey converter setup and experimental results. http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf

Ok, i can understand the logic of the results.
That i cannot understand is the wattage results given at document's page 9 (leaflet's page 6) in Table K-2.

He is stating that converter loaded with a battery outputs some 21 watts that corrects the figure (using a corrector factor) to 116 watts.
But, by using an 13,8 ohm resistor he gives 185,19 watts out, while by utilizing an 0,63 Ohm resistor he calculates 534,92 watts out.

Regards,
Baroutologos
Hi Baroutologos.

Perhaps I'll only add to your confusion, but I hope not. As I understand the document, the correction factor is used to to compare the charge efficiency of the Kromrey converter and a commercial charger. The two machines did not charge the battery with the same amount of current, nor in the same amount of time, so a direct comparison would not be possible. Current (amps) is a rate of flow over time, and so if you change the rate, you change the amount of charge in a given amount of time. Additionally, as the battery charges, the voltage changes, and so does the current flow. This effect is especially noticeable with the graph for the commercial charger. Because of this, a straight calculation of P=V*I isn't possible. The correction factor is a way of more accurately assessing the charge efficiencies. By using the AREA of the graphed results, you can more accurately compare how much energy each device delivered to the battery, even though the voltages, current flows, and charge-times differed.

When they used a simple resistance as a load, there is no correction factor necessary because 1) the voltage and the current flow is easily measured, and power is then a straightforward calculation (P=I^2*R), and 2) they didn't make any measurements using the resistors to load the commercial charger. They simply compared Watts In (to run the Kromrey) to Watts Out (into the load resistors.)

At least, that's the way I understood it.
__________________
 

Last edited by kent_elyue; 06-22-2009 at 03:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 06-22-2009, 04:16 AM
xpskid xpskid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 119
Well I swapped shafts again tonight and went to copper. The copper performed equivalent to aluminum, and both performing much better than 316 Stainless Steel when judged using the amp load difference between open output and a shorted output.

I then swapped the lower armature 180 degrees. Remember both sides of the armatures are wound in the same direction. The orginal had the winding similar top and bottom when viewing in the same magnetic direction (north to south). I swithched them just to check if it made any difference before rewinding my coils. Basically I had close to zero output. 0.46 V DC, and 1.8 V AC. and my current draw was 3.8 A, equivalent to shorted draw of the original configuration. Just to verify, I hooked it up to a battery and didn't see any change in the voltage. The motor didn't noticably change upon shorting and retained the high current draw. Another configuration to rule out.
Since the windings are the same, when spinning, the magnets see a constanly reversing wind, thus changing the wind direction won't change anything, is this correct ?. That leaves reversals in the winding on each armature as the last variable ? (plus pushing the resistance super low).

Regards,

Timm
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 06-22-2009, 07:25 AM
baroutologos baroutologos is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 586
@ Kent,

Yes you are right. The correction factor is to correct the performance regardings amperes going to battery from convetional charger to Kromrey converter. Thats acceptable till proven.

BUT, the low ohmic resistance outputs are of question here.
The Kromrey converter outputed in that leaflet some 1 amps shorted. (quite reasonable) (http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf)
How can boost the output to almost 30 amps when applied this 0,6 ohm load? (unreasonable)

In fact I search at John's pages and saw that IceStuff.com: John Bedini ENERGY MACHINE PICTURES from The Encyclopedia of free energy,energy21.org,energy 21 org ,Geoff Egel (see results 3 & 4) ) (although in a different setup - similar though)
amperage is about 3,7 amps at 13.5 ohms and 31.74 amps at 0,65 ohms

It cannot be so. This thing shorted outputs only some 1-2 amps max. By applying an 0.65 ohms it goes to 32 amps? Can it be?

I will e-mail JB directly (or at least try to) for explainations.

Regards,
Baroutologos
__________________
 

Last edited by baroutologos; 06-22-2009 at 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 06-22-2009, 12:40 PM
dllabarre's Avatar
dllabarre dllabarre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 186
Good!

I'm not the only one a little confused by that report.
Thank you for asking JB for an explanation.

It would also be nice if we could all use the same (hopefully simple) test to determine performance of our Kromrey converters so we'll be comparing apples to apples, watts to watts.

DonL
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 06-22-2009, 01:23 PM
xpskid xpskid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 119
Steve,

Do you have an inductance meter ?
Curious of what you read on your coils, and if the inductance changed when the aluminum cap are used.

Thanks,

Timm

Timm
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 06-22-2009, 04:25 PM
dambit's Avatar
dambit dambit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 493
Send a message via Skype™ to dambit
Hi Timm,

No i don't. I should probably look at getting one though.

Cheers,

Steve.
__________________
You can view my vids here

http://www.youtube.com/SJohnM81
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 06-22-2009, 05:10 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
There are a couple of things to consider in respect of the battery charger v Kromrey battery charging. Firstly, a battery that has been at rest prior to a charge can take a considerable number of charge / discharge cycles before it exhibits a stable charge / discharge curve. The second is that a battery that has been pulse charged conditioned can respond very slowly to being charged with a conventional DC charger. The original Mueller document gives us no information on how the test batteries were previously charged, the state of charge, or condition of the batteries used in the test prior to the tests being conducted. It is therefore quite possible that the initial Kromrey charge which preceeded the conventional charge could have been carried out without first having cycled the battery a good number of times as would nowadays be carried out on a normal load test for example with for example the SG energiser. The correction factor which was then subsequently calculated could have very likely resulted in very misleading end results.

Much has been learnt about batteries since 1984 when these tests were carried out. I have been pressing John Bedini to divulge his own current test method, so that we can all compare apples with apples and more importantly feel satisfied that the recommended test procedure is not flawed by not recording important data such as battery condition prior to performance tests.

Hoppy
__________________
 

Last edited by Hoppy; 06-22-2009 at 05:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 06-22-2009, 11:49 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Wow, I read the first part of that report about the Kromrey converter tests in 1984. I hate to say that the data gathering methods and number crunching techniques are invalid. It is so flawed that I could write a small essay on what's wrong with the content in just the first six pages of the report. But I don't think that you guys want to be "taken off track" so I will leave it at that. If anybody wants to know what the issues are and discuss them slowly in a calm rational way, then fine. If not, that's fine too.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:15 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,007
simply start a claims discussion thread

If this is a "builder's" thread, then it is possible for anyone that wants to debate the claims to start a thread on a Kromrey Discussion of Claims thread or whatever it should be called.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:12 AM
xpskid xpskid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 119
Coils

FYI...
~130 turns of bifilar #18 AWG yielded 0.1 ohms per coil, 57 uH.

Timm
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:27 AM
dllabarre's Avatar
dllabarre dllabarre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
If this is a "builder's" thread, then it is possible for anyone that wants to debate the claims to start a thread on a Kromrey Discussion of Claims thread or whatever it should be called.
Actually I thought this was a Kromrey converter threat.
So if it has to do with a Kromrey converter then I think it should be discussed here.

I don't think discussing the SSG or other apparatuses fit this thread.
But that's just MHO.

DonL
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 06-23-2009, 09:38 AM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Wow, I read the first part of that report about the Kromrey converter tests in 1984. I hate to say that the data gathering methods and number crunching techniques are invalid. It is so flawed that I could write a small essay on what's wrong with the content in just the first six pages of the report. But I don't think that you guys want to be "taken off track" so I will leave it at that. If anybody wants to know what the issues are and discuss them slowly in a calm rational way, then fine. If not, that's fine too.
I agree, IMO its flawed beyond belief!

Hoppy
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 06-23-2009, 11:21 AM
baroutologos baroutologos is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 586
I am sad to report the fundamentaly flawed energy measurements regarding Kromreay's Converter wattage output at low ohmic resistances, but on the other hand we cannot live upon wishes. Still if i am mistaken somehow i wait someone to answer it.

Anyway, i still believe this converter suitably arranged is a path to OU


question & Gambit:

Can you tell me please, what kind of motor have you mount? DC permanent type? Wattage?


Regards,
Baroutologos
__________________
 

Last edited by baroutologos; 06-23-2009 at 11:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 06-23-2009, 12:36 PM
dambit's Avatar
dambit dambit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 493
Send a message via Skype™ to dambit
Quote:
Originally Posted by baroutologos View Post

Can you tell me please, what kind of motor have you mount? DC permanent type? Wattage?


Regards,
Baroutologos
Hi,

These are the stats for the DC drive motor ia am using.

Voltage (V)
No load 12.0
Speed (RPM) 9700
Current (AMP) 1.3
Operating Range (V) 6-18

At Stall
Torque (kg/cm) 6.0
Current (AMP) 57

At Max Efficiency
Efficiency (%) 73
Power (W) 52
Speed (RPM) 8490
Torque (kg/cm) .60
Current (A) 6.0



Cheers,

Steve
__________________
You can view my vids here

http://www.youtube.com/SJohnM81
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:10 PM
baroutologos baroutologos is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 586
Thanks Dambit for your promt reply!

Whow, it seems to be a super-motor! 56 watts i suppose are enough for the job.
Perhaps any link for on-line vendors?


Regards,
Baroutologos
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:29 PM
dambit's Avatar
dambit dambit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 493
Send a message via Skype™ to dambit
Hi Baroutologos,

I got mine through a company here in Australia called Jaycar Electronics. They have a website Jaycar Electronics - Better. More Technical. and do online sales. It's a very cheep motor, it only cost me $24.

Cheers,

Steve
__________________
You can view my vids here

http://www.youtube.com/SJohnM81
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-23-2009, 10:41 PM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Baroutologos:

> I am sad to report the fundamentaly flawed energy measurements regarding Kromreay's Converter wattage output at low ohmic resistances, but on the other hand we cannot live upon wishes. Still if i am mistaken somehow i wait someone to answer it.

In theory there is nothing wrong or surprising about increased current output into a lower-valued resistor. However, like I said, there are so many flaws in the report that it makes every piece of data in the report questionable.

There is a big follow-up question: How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustain 630 watts of power dissipation? It would be a significant piece of work to do that. A 1000-watt toaster has a resistance of about 14 ohms. A 120-volt-2400-watt oven element has a resistance of about 6 ohms. How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustan at least 630 watts of power dissipation? Why don't they mention it in the report?

> The correction factor is to correct the performance regardings amperes going to battery from convetional charger to Kromrey converter. Thats acceptable till proven.

The correction factor is a flawed concept.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 06-24-2009, 03:14 AM
kent_elyue kent_elyue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
> How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustan at least 630 watts of power dissipation? Why don't they mention it in the report?
When dealing with negative (time-reversed) energy, one is in effect creating a "Negative Resistor" and therefore one does not need to dissipate anything. How does one accurately calculate anything when one's test equipment isn't really capable of accurately measuring what is really happening anyway? For example, measuring amps when one should be measuring local environmental heat change is only going to serve to confuse everyone.

Personally, I think the knowledge comes from doing - NOT from arguing about it. 'Nuf said.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 06-24-2009, 03:36 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Kent: The report alleges that the output is 20 volts DC at 31.7 amps from a full-wave bridge rectifier into a conventional resistor load of 0.63 ohms. They are talking real power, not "negative energy" or a "negative resistor." That's one big hot resistor that you could cook breakfast on. A standard biggish 1-watt resistor that you might see people experimenting with in a video clip would blow up in a fraction of a second at that power level. The whole premise of this forum is to make proper measurements when you experiment in order to create something that can be replicated and verified for the benefit of mankind.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 06-24-2009, 04:16 AM
Shamus's Avatar
Shamus Shamus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ur-th
Posts: 367
It certainly is puzzling until you realize that they didn't measure the current, they simply measured the voltage and used Ohm's law to calculate the power. The results then are not so surprising. And I would bet you a shiny new nickel that if they measured the amps in that circuit it wouldn't have shown 32 amps on the output side.

But of course, then, Ohm's law is out the window as the equation no longer balances. Now we're swimming through some murky waters! So then the conclusions are either the measurements they took were wrong (certainly possible) or they were measuring something other than normal electric current (also possible).
__________________
 

Last edited by Shamus; 06-24-2009 at 04:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 06-24-2009, 06:32 AM
baroutologos baroutologos is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 586
Ok people, enough said about the Mueller report.

Let people make the Konverter, and i am very confident that all we have much to learn from this procedure!

Special thanks to pioneers (replicators) here for the effort, time and money on this purpose.

Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: I wait with anxiety results!
PS2: thank Gambit for motor supplier
__________________
 

Last edited by baroutologos; 06-24-2009 at 08:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 06-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Kent: The report alleges that the output is 20 volts DC at 31.7 amps from a full-wave bridge rectifier into a conventional resistor load of 0.63 ohms. They are talking real power, not "negative energy" or a "negative resistor." That's one big hot resistor that you could cook breakfast on. A standard biggish 1-watt resistor that you might see people experimenting with in a video clip would blow up in a fraction of a second at that power level. The whole premise of this forum is to make proper measurements when you experiment in order to create something that can be replicated and verified for the benefit of mankind.
Yes, you nail it here! This machine is claimed to be a negative energy device but the original testers were quite happy to use conventional positive energy measurements to prove their claim. It is now for them to answer the critics of their procedures and methods in conventional EE terms, not just remain silent, hiding behind the negative energy shroud shouting - 'but you can't measure it'!

Hoppy
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-24-2009, 10:04 AM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
Yes, you nail it here! This machine is claimed to be a negative energy device but the original testers were quite happy to use conventional positive energy measurements to prove their claim. It is now for them to answer the critics of their procedures and methods in conventional EE terms, not just remain silent, hiding behind the negative energy shroud shouting - 'but you can't measure it'!

Hoppy
Sorry, but i dont think, the conventional EE Terms can explain it.
And even when you work on such Devices, you have to complete Think different to the 'conventional'.
And most dont get even a Patent on theyr Things, because they cannot explain it how they would hear it,
and thats just the lack of knowledge and understanding with our conventional Theories and Theoreticians.
Or can someone explain with a conventional Theorie why some of this Motors speeding up, when you put load on them.
They should more explain, why they still use the wrong Poles, instead correct them.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-24-2009, 10:58 AM
baroutologos baroutologos is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 586
@ Joit,

Motor speed-up huh? Have you ever experience it? I have it. Dambit have it. Many people i know have it. It not mystical, even though not in conventional teachings.

IMO, again, this is must be the key to OU. Speeding up with input down

Regards,
Baroutologos

if you want to learn more about speeding up see http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-watson-3.html , have some patience and go through the topic. Take your time.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-24-2009, 12:53 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joit View Post
Sorry, but i dont think, the conventional EE Terms can explain it.
And even when you work on such Devices, you have to complete Think different to the 'conventional'.
And most dont get even a Patent on theyr Things, because they cannot explain it how they would hear it,
and thats just the lack of knowledge and understanding with our conventional Theories and Theoreticians.
Or can someone explain with a conventional Theorie why some of this Motors speeding up, when you put load on them.
They should more explain, why they still use the wrong Poles, instead correct them.
Hi Joit

I don't need to build a Kromrey converter to demonstrate a motor speeding up under load. Its easy enough to do - See Thane Heins's thread on the Overunity.com forum. He is not saying that its caused by negative energy and cannot be explained by conventional electrical principles. The reasoning for this effect is discussed in this thread and is worth reading end to end.

Hoppy
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 06-24-2009, 02:06 PM
Shamus's Avatar
Shamus Shamus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ur-th
Posts: 367
Does it also explain things like cold behind the magnets, powering a load with a tiny wire, being able to hold touch the ends of the wires without getting shocked, or cooling of a charging battery? If so, that would be cool (no pun intended!).

Again I state that if you took the measurements in the Mueller document (not just voltage, but voltage *and* current) that V = IR would no longer balance, and then you're in trouble from a conventional standpoint. Perhaps they would hold looking at things from instantaneous point of view (i.e., integration), I don't know. I wasn't there and they don't explain their methodology for how they took their measurements.

I mean really, questioning things is one thing, but this constant and unrelenting skepticism is really starting to wear thin. Science is supposed to be all about testing and observation; where are yours? I'd say that if you aren't building *and* testing then you are contributing nothing to this thread. I would respectfully ask that you please start another thread and post your skepticism there like Richard did with his SSG thread so that people who actually *are* building and doing tests can share their observations without having to wade through a bunch of unrelated posts (that goes for pro as well as con!).
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 06-24-2009, 05:38 PM
xpskid xpskid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by redeagle View Post
@Joit If you look at Steve's scope traces you see spiked curve rather than a gradual shift. The faster the motor turns the sharper the gradiant gets. The nature of a flux gate or magnetic lock is to self close once the flux path is near completion. Until it is near completion the flux is going perpendicular to the coil. So you have an unresisted approach and a strong attraction once you get there. The strengthened attraction outweighs the cemf of the coils on approach. Coincidently the spikes we are seeing are from the breaking of the flux gate. Now if you figure that the magnetic arrangement is nnss. Traditional theories say that when you break from the first magnet with the coil shorted it would be attracted to the second one as well at the first. When spun fast enough, the field collapses closer to the second magnet creating emf rather than cemf.
(Correct me if I get this wrong Steve)
When you try to interpret Steve's trace, I believe he build a six pole machine which should be NSNSNS, a four pole machine would be NNSS

Timm
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers