I am building and I am reporting...
I don't mind others offering a few suggestions as to configurations or observations picked up from the DVD or other reliable sources, but I don't have time to justify why I'm interested in building this.

I love to experiment and build stuff, so I'm leaving it there....

Regards,

Timm

__________________
 

I think you are right Timm, I went back and looked at the picture of the generator that I was thinking about. It was someone elses. I am going to retract my previous post until we can get a confimation on which arrangement that was a scope trace of.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

Matt

__________________
 

Hoppy, which Thread, can you give me a Direction?
I am not often at OU.com and dont have much overview about the Posts there.
Afterwards i think, you been joking about the Explanation, and think, i better had been silent.

And yes, i did build such a Thing with one Coil and simple 4 N-S Magnets, what been 2x2 stick together and it did speed up at very low Pulses. I put a mechanical Load on it, to slow it down, but it increase slowly at speed.
My Coils been wound some different, with 76-100- then allways 6 Turns slower down back to 74.
I dont think, there is the Key to OU, but its maybe a part of it.

__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

Joit

The thread is: Thane Heins Perepiteia

Hoppy

__________________
 

Hi Guys,

I should have clarified which arrangement I was testing for that scope trace. For that particular image I was only using 2 magnet blocks. N-S. I had removed the other 4 as I was taking everything back to basics. When all six blocks are in place the AC wave form looks like a regular sine wave. Having said that, I didn't have the scope setup when I had my original coil arrangement exhibiting the speed up when shorted effect, so I can't compare the difference.

Cheers,

Steve.

__________________
You can view my vids here

http://www.youtube.com/SJohnM81

Configuration #4
I rewound the coils using ~ 130 turns of bifilar #18 AWG magnet wire. I did not have enough room on my spool for trifilar, and thought bifilar would still assist in lowering the resistance.
John advised to use Copper/Carbon brushes to lower the resistance. Since the only low resistance brushes I could find (Silver/Carbon) were $45 apiece, I thought I’d try braided copper since this is just a test device and not meant for a long term show piece.

Resistance (total system, across wires at FWB, through brushes) = 0.5 ohms
Inductance (total) 247 µH

I use the coil configuration (Figure 1), slip > coil 1 >coil 2 > coil3 > coil4 > slip
1500 rpm (12v) = 7.5 V DC
= 10.8 V AC
3000 rpm (24v) = 17.8 V DC
= 21.1 V AC
Amp draw with no load = 4.3 A
Amp draw with output shorted = 5.7 A

I did not observe any of the characteristics shown in the DVD.

Configuration #5
Trying to figure out where to go next …..

Attached Images

	Braided_Copper_Brushes_sm.jpg (138.7 KB, 102 views)
	Coils.jpg (95.5 KB, 54 views)

__________________
 

Timm have you changed the brushes recently? Or are they the same size as the ones used for all past experiments?

__________________
 

Hi Ren,

Yes... this was a new brush set-up. I was using graphite/carbon brushes (images in earlier post), and John suggested they may add too much resistance and suggested copper/carbon brushes. Everything I found was expensive ($45 per) so I thought I'd try used braided copper (desolder)(new image above). They aren't a long term solution but they're a low resistance short term solution.
What I don't understand is I had the amp load delta down to 0.2 amps in the first configuration after moving to an aluminum shaft, but this one didn't perform as well (0.8 amp delta). In the video John always prefaced his statements with "when wound correctly"... so I'm thinking that is the key, but unsure what to try.

I still need to think about this somemore but thought my inductance figure might give me some insight into impedance at the higher frequency and pulses.

Regards,

Timm

__________________
 

How did you connect the bifilar wires on each coil to the other coil on the same armature and from the top armature to the bottom armature?

Did you just connect the 2 wires together on each end of each coil and run 1 wire from coil to coil?

DonL

__________________
 

Guys,

'We' are building a Kromrey and I'm not a sceptic as I've probably built more derivatives of rotor and solidstate SG's than a considerable number of other people.

I have 2off 6" aluminium rotored devices and more solid state devices with every modification JB has revealed to such as the OTG group so with respect to other builders here I am in a position to talk with some experience behind me.

I've charged up to 1350Ahr battery banks consisting of 12off Trojan T105's.

I would love to confirm some of the clues we're directed to look for on this device. A colleagues build of a Ron Cole motor has shown that this type of device will increase speed when shorted out so I don't doubt that the Kromrey will.

We will be determining the actual temperature of this 'cold air' using a highly sophisticated device called a thermometer which will be corrected for the effective wind speed. Such devices are somewhat less subjective than the back of the hand test.

Equally battery case temperature will be determined using a thermometer.

The No.1 question I have is that 'we' won't know if we have succeeded in replicating the device that John has shown as we have no definitive test to copy i.e. drive the converter with a known voltage/ amperage for a set period than apply a known load to the battery charged.

Given John changed the target figure between 120 and 180% during the DVD it still wasn't clear what he meant by OU.

As I understand it in the past OU has been defined by John as the comparison between what goes in to the battery and what you get out (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Thus my understanding is that the reason why John says nobody is intererested until you hit 300% is that the average conversion efficiency of such as an SG is only circa 35% and thus you'd need 300% 'OU' to be ahead of the game.

Hopefully in due course we'll be bale to put some figures to all this.

Can I suggest somebody asks John for more details of the materials used in the build of a Kromrey??????????????????????????????

REgards

Richard

__________________
 

DVD
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM

A Documentary Series. Volume 10.
THE KROMREY CONVERTER (G-FIELD GENERATOR)
Dialogues with JOHN BEDINI
2 HOUR 4 MINUTES

Well, here it is, John Bedini's legendary “G-field generator” from the early 1980s in all its glory running on the bench and putting out more power than John is putting in. And ejecting a stream of freezing cold air from its interior, where one would “normally” expect heat would be produced and dissipated.
In this DVD John Bedini, painstakingly traces the “G-field generator's” pedigree and history all the way back to the late Professor Raymond Kromrey, and John then presents the theory, the circuit diagram, what to do, and what not to do, to build one that works. Watch, too, how John shows the motor running under load with the circuit only completed by a strand of wire the diameter of a human hair—an impossibility with conventional EM energy.
For the practically minded, this DVD is all anyone could ask for if one was contemplating building an overunity electrical motor.
Is this fanciful talk? Well, John's manufacturing and production team was rapidly infiltrated and destroyed, and M.I.T. bought up the last remaining twelve operational units from John, never to see the light of day again, so you can draw your own conclusions.
Also included is the archival footage from the celebrated 1984 “Town Hall Meeting” with Bill Jenkins, in which John springs this technology on an unsuspecting world. This DVD is truly historic.

"John then presents the theory, the circuit diagram, what to do, and what not to do, to build one that works. For the practically minded, this DVD is all anyone could ask for if one was contemplating building an overunity electrical motor."

I believe John is genuine but, I think anyone that has purchased this DVD deserves a little more info.

__________________
 

Don,

I terminated each coil (Bi & Tri filar) and then connected to the next using 14 gauge copper wire.

Timm

__________________
 

Xpskid: You made a few basic measurements with configuration #4 and you are implying that you want to move onto a new configuration. Am I correct in assuming that you have a full setup with an electric motor powering your magnet-coil configuration and it is a reasonably faithful replication of a Kromrey Convertor? If yes, why change configurations? Can you come up with a plan for making measurements on the setup? What are the characteristics shown in the DVD that you are trying to observe beyond the "cold air" effect? Did you get any cold air?

__________________
 

I've read posts on this site for some time, and this is my first post. Anyhow, I hope I'm not posting information that has already been brought to the groups attention, but I found it to be of value. I myself am in the process of replicating the Kromrey Converter, and am having trouble getting mine "inside of the bell curve". My current build is one in which the magnets rotate and the coils are static, and the next one is in the process of being machined by a friend and myself, and will resemble John's in EFTV 10. What seems to be the most difficulty is tuning of the coils & RPM to get it inside this bell curve. I believe we need to identify the criteria in which you know you are running not only inside this curve, but once there, how to optimize the coils and RPM of the motor to reach the peak. Back in 1996, Jean of JLN labs replicated Cole's G-field generator. What I found that would be applicable is John Bedini's comments at the end. Jean's replication and results can be found here:

G-Field V1.1 Test Report

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from JOHN BEDINI :

<<

Their is a difference between My G-Field and Jeans, Go to My section and look at the pictures I have put up there in motors and ideas, You will see that My Machine has four poles with permeate magnets on the out side. The G-Field is a flux gate generator the curve in which it works is very important along with the windings most of these generators will at some point be 120% or better, but it must be matched to the load. It runs on a Bell Curve so You must be at the top of this curve at the correct speed, I have suggested to Jean that he uses a brushless motor and a non- magnetic shaft this is very important. the 10 inch generator on my page uses a motor that only draws 1amp or 12 watts at 12 volts the output from this proto-type generator is 14.5 volts at 5 amps = 72.5 watts, But 2.5 amps moves back inside the generator so you are left with 36.25 watts to back charge the batteries.

When building this Generator You must build it with Transformer laminations or You will have Eddie current losses in the pole pieces this will cost you 10 watts or better. The way to get the current out of the Generator ,You must"Tri-filer wind the coils" this lowers the Impedance of the coils, The coils are in series on this machine. As You can see that 1/2 the power moves back into the generator you must get this out of the coils "BY LOWERING THE COIL IMPEDANCE" and matching to the load you want to power. One more thing that I might add to are discussion is that when the G-Field is operating correctly the motor current must move down under load to 1/2 the power input, as You can see now the power input drops to 6 watts . "Ron Cole's Test were done under full DC conditions, The G-Field output "MUST BE FULLY RECTIFIED AND FILTERED TO PURE DC".

I hope You understand what I have said here, because this is why they have all failed at making this Machine.

John Bedini

>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is of use to the group. (As they say, the devil is in the details...)

Kind Regards,

Michael Hess

__________________
 

The patent cited in the video is Kromrey's Patent #3374376. In reading the patent again I picked up on a couple things. I know John said generically that the patent was wrong, but I will cite the points here in case they are possibly relevant to successful replication.

Point #1: It is claimed that laminations are used in the pole pieces (stator), and in the armature pieces. The patent does stipulate which direction the laminations are to be stacked. The exact wording (starting in Column 2, line 24) is this: "The armatures... may consist in essence of highly permeable foils whose principle dimension is perpendicular to the rotor axis." I assume the "principle dimension" to be the length.

Point #2: The ends of the armature pieces are curved to match the concave surfaces of the pole pieces such that the air gap is constant throughout rotation.

Point #3: The sum of the arcs of the four poles have a sum totaling 90 degrees of rotation. This means that each arc covers 22.5 degrees of rotation.

Point #4: It is claimed that the power output does not change linearly with speed of the rotor. Column 4, line 62 onward states that the power output did not drop substantially even with a 25% reduction in rotor speed, and in another test the output did not change substantially over the range of 1600 rpm down to 640 rpm.

Perhaps these points are worthy of consideration.

__________________
 

All very pertinent info and well worth pondering. And I think John is quite correct about there being a "bell curve" (or "window" if you will) in which the device will operate and display the phenomena described in the EFTV #10.

And I have to remind myself that every failure teaches something--as long as I'm willing to listen. Yes, I consider the mk I to be a failure because of several design problems. So, after carefully considering the design flaws of the mk I, I'm building the mk II (sorry, still no pictures as I can't find the charger to my digital camera ).

It's similar to the mk I except I built the rotor in a cage just in case magnets decide to go flying. Also I used only 50 ft of #22 on each coil (instead of 100 ft), trifilar wound, non-twisted, and made sure of the polarity of each coil by putting the cores next to each other and energizing them to see if they attracted or repelled. The ohms of the coils this time are around 1.2 total, much better than I had hoped. I can't wait to do some testing with this setup.

__________________
 

Did JB use laminated coils on the Kromrey Converter he demostrated in the video?
If not, would laminated coils raise the COP?

Thank you,
DonL

__________________
 

Hi MileHigh,

Here are my objectives:

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
This project is a reproduction of the Kromrey generator as shown in John Bedini’s EFV 10 DVD.
No procedures or methods exist other than those instructions and visual demonstrations presented by John.

Due to the non-traditional nature of the energy demonstrated, use of traditional meters may provide indication of relative differences, however should not be used as definitive metrics or reference. Key characteristics of desired performance include:
• Anti-Lentz effect – The motor should draw less current when under load
• Cool air streams should be evident in the area of the botch walls of the magnet stacks
• The output should exhibit efficient charging of a lead acid battery
• The lead acid battery should cool down when charging

Everything I've read and the primary point of the Kromrey patent is that the device will draw less amps when under load or shorted than when unloaded.
If it draws more current and slows down when loaded, I probably don't have it right yet. I still record the AC/DC output, I hook it up to a battery and watch the voltage reading on the battery. I check for cold air, but the device will move a lot of air by the armature turning.

I have changed many things since starting...
Shaft composition : I'm moving to brass... have used 316LSS, Aluminum, Copper
I had granite spacers between the top of my pole pieces and the aluminum top/bottom plate... moving to aluminum spacers
Windings: I've tested #23, #18 and a couple different winding configurations.

I believe the winding configuration is the key...
What is wonderful, is this thread attracts people similarly interested and we are not lacking for ideas to try...

Regards,

Timm

__________________
 

I had checked the screenshots on the dvd to see if I could verify one way or the other, but it did not "look" like laminations on either the poles or the coils. However, both the patent and John Bedini state that laminations would reduce the eddy currents. (See Lambda's post #228)

__________________
 

A non-magnetic cage?
I know, stupid question...

__________________
 

@ Timm

What else could be done?

Assuming magnet strength / geometry, magnetic flux manipulation, coil cores and coil possitioning is as supposed (told). The ONLY variables left to you to manipulate is:

* coil's windings
* armature speed

There has not to be any "voodoo magic" involved. As with just any generator these are the variables.
By the way, I have witnessed the anti Lenz' effect in a setup of mine.
Regards,
Baroutologos

__________________
 

How are your coils wound:

• AWG?
  number of turns?
  single, bi-filar, tri-filar?
  If bi or tri, how many wires did you run from 1 coil to the next?

I don't mean to be a PITA but the more details we present here the easier it will be for others to resolve their issues.

Thank you,
DonL

PITA=Pain In The A??


PS: the rest of my parts should be in by Wednesday!!

__________________
 

Hi Timm,

I'll take a stab at some of your comments:

> No procedures or methods exist other than those instructions and visual demonstrations presented by John.
You can always try to braistorm and come up with some of your own! Reading up on DC motors and generators would help. I know that the allegation is that the Kromery generator is a non-traditional generator, but it appears on first look to be a conventional generator where mechanical power pushes coils through a magnetic field, inducing current/voltage in the coils. Any energy transfer through the coils into a load will casuse a Lenz' drag on the electric motor that is powering it. When you run a test and watch it rotate, everything quickly falls into a balance. The input electrical power, the motor/generator RPMs and mechanical power transfer into the generator, the power going into the load and the lost power as heat all find a settling point. I suppose one possible question is does the settling point of the Kromery convertor differ greatly from a similar motor/generator setup?

I know that people will make a point about the unconventional nature of the convertor and traditional measurements may not apply. However, if you consider the convertor as a "black box" with the mechanical input on one side, and the electrical output that drives a load resistor on the other side, then you don't care if what's inside the black box is unconventional. You can measure the output power going into the load resistor. The voltage and current going into the load resistor will be conventional.

> • Anti-Lentz effect – The motor should draw less current when under load
That is a fairly complicated thing and it would be great if somebody really investigates it. In general terms, you would expect lower current consumption for when the generator output is shorted, and when it is open circuit. That's because in both cases no power is being transfered into the load. Somewhere between zero ohms load and infinite ohms load there is a "sweet spot" resistive value for the whole motor/convertor/load system that would put maximum power into the load and therefore draw the most current from the motor. So will the Kromrey convertor exhibit radically different performance curves than a conventional motor/generator in this case? I realize that the replicators might not want to take it this far with respect to making measurements, but you can always do some bacis investigations and then make some infrences.

> • Cool air streams should be evident in the area of the botch walls of the magnet stacks
Basically impossible to measure for the average experimenter but you can always make a subjective measurement!

> • The output should exhibit efficient charging of a lead acid battery
With respect to what? How do you define efficiency? Again, it would resuire some serious testing that perhaps only a die-hard would want to do.

• The lead acid battery should cool down when charging
> Easy measurement, looking forwards to the results. You are going to have to make sure the battery is out of the airflow generated by the Kromrey convertor because that would invalidate your measurements.

> Everything I've read and the primary point of the Kromrey patent is that the device will draw less amps when under load or shorted than when unloaded.
If it draws more current and slows down when loaded, I probably don't have it right yet. I still record the AC/DC output, I hook it up to a battery and watch the voltage reading on the battery. I check for cold air, but the device will move a lot of air by the armature turning.

I read that you recorded the AC/DC output, but you didn't mention if it was under load or not. Do you have a scope? The reason I ask is that the output waveform from the convertor will change under load because they have that output cpacitor in the circuit. It will be a pretty funky waveform, and you really would need a true-RMS multimeter or a scope to make accurate power readings.

> I have changed many things since starting...
Shaft composition : I'm moving to brass... have used 316LSS, Aluminum, Copper
I had granite spacers between the top of my pole pieces and the aluminum top/bottom plate... moving to aluminum spacers
Windings: I've tested #23, #18 and a couple different winding configurations.

I am no expert but I can offer my suggestion: All of your support components for the motor should ideally be non-magnetic and non-conductive. That way you will not be interfering with the magnetic fields or burning off energy as heat due to eddy currents. However, I cannot imagine that the materials you use will have noticable performance on the convertor. The main focus of the convertor is to complete a strong magnetic flux circuit when the coils line up with the stator magnets. Changing external parameters will have very liitle affect on this.

Good luck with your testing.

__________________
 

> Windings: I've tested #23, #18 and a couple different winding configurations.

Here is the basic number crunching on the windings: A single very thick winding or a bifilar or trifilar winding setup that has the same cross-sectional area as the single very thick winding will behave the same way if the number of turns is the same. Bedini is making a point to try to keep the coil resistance as low as possible to reduce the i-squared x resistance losses to a minimum.

The "sweet spot" resistor is also known as the impedance matching resistor. The resistor can be tuned to match the output impedance of the coils when they are functioning in the running convertor. This is not to be confused with the resistance measurement for the coils. When the load resistor is an impedance match for the coil setup, then you will get the maximum possible power transfer into the load at a given RPM. This will also generate a maximum Lenz drag effect on the driving electric motor. Depening on the power of your setup, the impedance matching resistor might have to be able to dissipate tens of watts.

The higher the number of turns in your coils for a given RPM, the higher the open-circuit output voltage you will get from the convertor. As you know, the higher the output voltage, the lower the output current. Coils with a higher number of turns have a higher output impedance, and therefore the impedance matching load resistor has to be a higher value to make the match for the maximum power transfer into the load.

Ultimately, it does not matter how many turns your coils are wound to, as long as the coil dimensions are about the same, the maximum power output from the convertor will be the same. You just have to change the load resistor to find the match for a given coil setup.

If anybody is looking for a relatively economical way to measure the power into the load resistor, you probably have seen sound card adapters and software that you can use to capture waveforms. Gotoluc has a setup like that, and I have to assume that the software can do RMS power calculations on captured waveforms. The output wavefom from the convertor is only slightly sinusoidal, so you really do need a true RMS power calculation.

Everything above is applicable to a conventional generator. My gut feeling is that the Kromrey convertor will produce power in pretty much the same way as a conventional generator, except the convertor's output waveform will be quite different from a standard sine wave. The convertor looks to me like it has a very strong cogging point when the coils line up with the stator magnets. I really don't think that strong cogging point is gong to help when it comes to it's ability to produce output power. The cogging is an unwanted "disturbance torque" as far as the motor is concerned. The only way to make that go away would be to have a huge flywheel attached to the shaft, and that's not part of the design.

I could be wrong but I think the most important point is not to assume it's conventional, and also to not assume it's not conventional. You have to build it and then play with it and investigate to find out for yourselves.

__________________
 

Don't forget Bedini did show a flywheel in the DVD and mentioned it would help the cogging effect.

A colleague has also suggsted using some kind of pulsing motor drive (PWM) to drive this device.

Regards

Richard

__________________
 

@ DONL

PITA? LOL! Man we are to share views and info. The more specific and technical we get the more closer to any solution we are.

In order to witness the accelaration effect (at worst the non slow-down effect when coil is shorted) my setup is composed:

A rotor 12'' diam composed of 6 neomagnets 1'' diam all north face out.
RPM must be 1200+
Coil single wire, 29AWG at 75 ohms! When shorted accelaration DOES occur.
Nothing else on the others oddities mentioned.

I hope this helps,

.................................................. .
@MileHigh

Very true. In a given setup (magnet strength, topology, coil's core material and shape, rotor rpm) any given coil has a specific amount of output no matter how the windings are.
But, in order to extract the maximum energy out of it, it is desired the least ohmic resistance possible.
Anyway, the accelaration effect requires great coil impedance and NOT low coil impedance. The accelaration effect also does stack as you connect many coils in series in same phase. That's my (note that) experience.


Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: do it yourself

__________________
 

I’m sorry Steve and others, still no answer from John Bedini on above questions.

__________________
 

Hello all,

I joined this group coming from the Monople_1 group where I have spent several years working on variants of the monopole units. I have built units ranging from a single pole hard drive platter units to a 25lb. stainless steel rotor unit with 3 large quadfilar coils - spins about 500rpm scary

I have spent the last few months working on a Kromrey converter and here is what my experience has been. First of all i want you to know as a newby i read all the previous posts before sharing.

I have built a 2 coil (quadfilar from previous unit) stationary unit and had my first decent test last night. Here are my results:

After test run of 3 minutes:
Magnet temp. = 83.4 deg. F
Pole pieces temp. = 94.5 deg. F
Air expelled was not measured due to the need for an accurate system.
Battery was a gel cell 7ah - its temp dropped 1.2 deg. F in 3 minutes.
Battery rose .17vdc in 3 minutes.
24vdc motor drive was 1.11 amps while the kromrey output was open
24vdc motor drive was .86 amps while the kromrey output was shorted
Approx a 22.5% reduction in draw.
The system ran noticable faster when it was shorted, no doubt. I am building an rpm gauge to read the exact difference.

This unit is not pretty but i think it may help someone on here when i get my details posted. I am noticing some neat anomolies with respect to speed and geometry. The output wave was the key that got me to where I am.

Got to get back to work

__________________
 

Pneuphysics,

That is great !! Thanks for joining us on Steve Forum

I know several people here have iron's in many different fires trying to draw together a collective of thoughts... some sources want to remain anonymous, but we're trying to get the details out without breaking any trust.

Please share your details when possible...

There is a general concensus building that the mechanical part isn't too difficult, but the windings and impedance values have been a challange. It's good to see someone try a quadfilar to examine even lower inductance. Anything special about your wind, direction, or coil sequence ?

Looking forward to seeing your build.

Thanks !!

Timm

__________________
 

I have re-wound my coils and they are now in the configuration that John Bedini recommends on the DVD. I am not noticing any of the effects that John shows in the DVD, and I believe I know why (I need to tri-filar my coils for one). I would really appreciate any other thoughts on this, because I am stuck and believe this is the key.

On EFTV 10 DVD around 34:30 into it, John draws out the circuit, with the coils in a tri-filar configuration, all in series. He said, "We found out it was an impedance problem. You cut the impedance by 3." He mentions that the impedance of the coils would be 3 ohms, and then when tri-filar wound it should drop to .4 ohms. He mentions impedance, not resistance! Well, impedance has many variables as most of you know, and to calculate the impedance in this particular case, you would first measure the inductance of the coil, and use the standard formula to get your inductive reactance (impedance).

X(L) = 2*pi*f*L, X(L) being inductive reactance as I cannot do subscripts on here.

Now, plug in the inductance you measured and then the other variable would be your frequency, which is based upon the RPM and the number of poles. If it is a 4 pole, I imagine there would be 4 pulses per revolution, so multiply the RPM by 4. Now I can see why John states it is a bell curve, and is speed dependant, as the impedance is frequency dependant.

I certainly appreciate any and all feedback as we are all in the same boat trying to figure this out and understand the technology. This is all sounding very familiar with the SSG having a purely reactive output, as it seems we are seeking the same thing in this case as well.

Regards,

Mike H.

__________________