Can you explain?

I like to see people come to this forum and ask questions because it seems that they are interested in getting answers and learning about the technology. A problem usually raises itself very quickly, however, because what seems to be true turns out to be false. I am questioning whether you are really interested in getting answers. I hope you are serious and able to rise to the occasion. Here are a few questions for you.

1. What to you mean by self runner?

2. How many coils do you think you can add? How many coils do you think Peter would recommend?

3. Are you willing to give a full description and disclosure as to what you "tried"?

4. How do you define wimpy? Can you answer in terms of watts and joules? Are you simply doing qualitative experiments with no consideration for actual quantities and amounts?

5. Do you have enough experience and skill dealing with people to develop confidence in what you may have to contribute to this forum?

6. Are you willing to interact with the skeptics and trolls that enjoy tearing down anyone that posts positive results, however small or trivial?

You might as well know that there are lots of experimenters and energy researchers on this forum that don't tolerate fools and shallow thinkers. Seeing this is post number 5 from you on this forum, you could be new here. Another possibility is that you have been here before and you created a new identity to hide behind.

My biggest problem with your post is that you seem to have put multiple energy collection coils around your build and then seem to complain that the system bogged down.

Let's say, for example, that your build was capable of collecting 10 watts from an unidentifiable or unidentified source. Then, you add coils to your build that put a 20 watt (or 10.0001 watt) load on the system as a whole. Then, surprise, surprise, the system bogs down. What a shame, the system doesn't work. Do you see how ridiculous this would be?

I hope you are up to the challenge. I will enjoy watching your videos when you post links to them. Please post links in this thread. Hopefully I will be able to find them at EnergyTechMedia. You obviously think the members here know all about it, but you will make a better impression if you are more transparent.

Welcome to the forum.

First Impressions

OK, I searched for EnergyTechMedia and I found a YouTube channel by that name. I am assuming that this is your YouTube channel and the videos are yours. If so, you don't have to answer question 4. Basically, you have no idea how many watts or joules you are working with because you are a "qualitative" experimenter and the numbers have no meaning for you or to you.

My suggestion is for you to keep learning and do some measurements. You could have discovered something fantastic and new but you will never know because you didn't measure it. You don't have to believe me, but so far you don't appear to have done anything sufficiently unusual to remark about. I think John Bedini and Peter Linderman have a lot to teach us and antigravity probably exists, but like you said yourself, you have not yet discovered the proof.

Also, I apologize if I was too hard on you. Compared to some of the other contributors to this forum, I am a marshmallow.

The Self-Runner: Is It Possible?

Thanks for creating this thread.

Is a self-runner possible? I don't know, but if it is, I believe it might utilize a spiral magnet motor, such as the Harry Sprain Magnet Motor, but with some sort of coil fly-back capture and storage, driving an anti-cogging Muller generator.

In fact, several spiral magnet motors may be required to be connected in series or in tandem.

Spiral Magnet Motor Thread: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...net-motor.html

Coil Fly-back Capture: For example, it might utilize a regenerative snubber design, so that the power that drives the spiral magnet motor can be recaptured, stored, and later be recycled in use in the spiral magnet motor's driving circuit.

Muller Anti-cogging Generator technology: MullerPower.com ... Advancing the Legacy of Canadian free energy inventor Bill Muller and his remarkable Motor / Generator Designs

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Something for nothing?

Everybody wants something for nothing. If you think it is possible, then get busy and prove it. After all, all you need is a strong belief. Is that not true? So, what is your definition of a self runner? Solar power? COP>1? I want to know what you mean by self-runner. Without defining the meaning, you could mean anything and who will know what you mean, other than yourself? Do you enjoy talking to yourself? LOL. That sounds crazy to me.

So, who wants to admit they believe in pixy dust? Show me the evidence or at least show me something you have built. My kudos to VacuumEnergyMan. At least he has built some things and read Bedini, Peter and Aluminium Cone Theory. Do you believe the spiral magnet motor is for real? Is energy coming from the ambient? Is it a genuine example of a self runner? Have you seen it in action? Did it convince you? How much energy is being collected, per hour or per second, etc?

Henry Ford



“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.”

― Henry Ford

SG self runner

The highest COP self runner (after starting the input with a freshly charged battery, no more charging is necessary from any wall charger, etc...) - that I've seen with the SG circuits was one variation John had.

I believe this is the exact one:



That very large cap bank was charge up possibly with an isolated recovery windings on each coil. The pulley timed the mechanical points to a bunch of batteries in parallel on the back side. When the front battery went down to about 12 volts, it was put on the back in parallel and one of the fully charged batts was put on the front and the machine was run again.

This could be done indefinitely and the entire battery bank on the back side remained fully charged.

Mechanical discharge switch and large capacitive blasts do wonders. I did something similar and I could charge my 12v 7ah battery with about 198,000 uf at 14 volts or so for an hour (running with the same kind of battery on the front) - discharged about once every 2 seconds. When turning it off after only one hour of charging, that battery would continue to charge for an entire hour. REAL CHARGE, not a fluffy voltage charge.

Bearden says the lead ions are very heavy and have a lot of momentum when going so that is an internal charging current developed on its own that actually doesn't come solely from the caps so gives an assistance to it or a gain, however you want to look at it. I think that is what helped to keep pushing the back battery bank up even though it was running on only one battery. I thought we might have mentioned this in the 2nd book and no generator coils were used on this.

There have been other self runners at John's but that was the strongest I remember.

This is an old experiment I did just to prove a point. Cap is input source instead of a battery and isolated recovery charges output cap. Then after input goes down to certain point, it rises up until the system is at a happy resonance and it sits there and oscillates without drawing dropping the input anymore. Just enough there to run itself and not power lights, etc... but shows a principle that conditioned caps hit with radiant over time can have a strong self charging effect - also probably contributed to John's self runner back then.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDtXR_1Ubs8[/VIDEO]

A RESPONSE TO wayne

Well, I don't.


No.


Is that what you believe?


You don't know?


What is yours?


What about it?


What about it?


That is obvious.


Have you defined your meaning?


So could you.


Apparently, not you.


According to who? You?


Do you?


Not funny.


More likely, every one who doesn't agree with you sounds crazy to you.


Who is the "they" that you are referring to?


No.


As if kudos from you had any value.


Good for him. Tell him that.


What do you mean "for real?"


To what energy are you referring?


Show me where that claim was ever made if you can.


In terms of your definition, how would you specifically define the term "seen?"


Of what?


From what or where?


According to what equation?

Hi Aaron,
please correct me if I misunderstood John B some time back. He's running this build off of the Bedini/Cole half bipolar ckt right?
Thanks,
Patrick A.

Hello Vac man

Let's start in reverse.

I asked John's right hand men who make and sell advanced kits of the
past what to expect on COP. 1.2 was the answer IF you tune and tune
from now until Xmas.

This means you must select components from hundreds to match them
perfectly on spec's just for openers. Then the other things that must be
done are listed in the books. I love it all. Do it, spend the money and
prove it to yourself that more than 100 percent or just settle for 100
percent COP, that proves the entire scientific cartel wrong.

The calculations show more than 100 percent but not many know
how to run calc's on the Bedini systems.

Next we go to the idea of self running.

John K has shown a clock clock clock sounding wooden Bedini self
runner years back, so did that thief Rick. Not much is left over to
power something.

That is not the point. The point is that even 100 percent COP is proof
that your Gov/controlled/School/College has lied to you and hidden
the truth.

If these Gov/control/freaks put the bag on Tesla and burnt down
his lab, what makes you think they wouldn't twist reality?

Okay well I am sure you are aware of these facts and have heard
some of this before. In the beginning JOHN had the SSG to charge
and maintain any battery and most could not get it to operate
at a COP of 1. John never said that everyone would.

Now that the advanced book is out more people will pay attention
to this device. Keep tuning, keep trying to get it to operate at
just over 1 and someday we will all understand that this is key
to higher COP's.


The goal of the new book is to keep people building and tuning
so that they can first have a higher efficiency that any other
device on earth to run power to batteries from solar panels ETC...


Look at the 2010 Ferris Wheel, it could power your house, this
is the very advanced version and unless we can accomplish the
basics of advanced building, we can not move forward.

Great job on using MOT coils as an experiment.

When we go to the very advanced books we will be at a COP of 1.2
and with the addition of the magnetic Gates John uses from Howard
Johnson's work, we will be able to power our homes.

COP of 10 in a practical application is a minimum for John B.

We are not there yet. Get it over 100 percent and you will be ready
for the very advanced stuff.

Anything over 100 percent might run itself if everything is done
just right but this is only a proof of concept. Looping back energy
to drive the primary mover is a good experience and should be
worked at a number of years before anyone is ready to go further.

Look on Youtube and you will see very few self runners though
many on the youtube devices could, they have not done it because
they know that it would have little practical use, contrary to what
they thought it would have been.

Everyone wants all of the answers now without doing the work.

Keep busy and remember our work is destroying the lies of modern
science. Also remember what John has repeated many times over
that the device that he has given to us was only originally
intended to give us a way to take any junkyard battery and
charge every battery you own with it.

Going beyond that is a never ending experiment most will never
perform. All OverUnity machines start out by being highly efficient
first and then with the addition of one extra tweek could put
you miles ahead of the pack.

I have searched high and low for self running devices and there
are very few genuine units of anything.

But we are getting closer everyday.

These books keep us stirred up, moving forward.

I can tell you this, if John sees someone moving forward and really
putting money into a huge project he will help you.

Do you have any batteries?

Mikey

cole switch

That's possible - I have to ask John. This was around 2003 so has been a while.

Responding to VIDBID

1. Yes, I do want something for nothing. I don't expect it. I don't need it. I will not be crushed if I don't get it. But, I want it anyway. You say, And that certainly explains a lot.

2. I do think it is possible in the sense that I put nothing in and I get something out. And, yes, I believe that eventually I might get it. You say, And that is probably what you'll get, since that is what you believe. That was a compound statement, so perhaps you are saying, "No, I won't get busy and try to prove it." If so, that's fine by me. I'm not going to try an force anybody to do anything. That's not my way.

3. Some people think that a strong belief is all one needs. I think one needs more than a mere belief, no matter how strong it is. That, since you ask me, is what I believe. I believe one should actually DO something, based on one's beliefs, and thereby PROVE their belief is substantial.

4. I have my definition of self-runner and I will spell it out in words. Before I get to that, however, you say you "don't know" if it is possible, but you don't define your terms. Instead of dealing with the issue of the definition you want me to give you MY definition. More fundamental than that is the fact that VacuumEnergyMan, is the one the used the term first. It is HIS definition that we should be seeking. As far as I'm concerned, if an "open system" build has more energy out than is supplied, it could be set up as a self-runner. Due to conversion losses, the system might need to be scaled up. Conversion losses would come into play if the form of the output energy is such that it would need to be converted to another form of energy to close the loop. Having stated my definition, VacuumEnergyMan can state whether his definition is compatible with my definition, or not. Since he is a qualitative and not a quantitative experimentalist, it does not matter at this point. I've seen many of your earlier posts, VIDBID. You also have a problem with quantitative analysis.

5. By my definition, solar power, fits in the category of self-runner. However, that is hardly the point. VacuumEnergyMan apparently does NOT accept solar power as "self running". And, THAT is where this thread started out. I really wonder what is going through your mind, since you chose to respond as you did. Well, I do have one thought on that subject. I attacked you and you are in full defense mode. And, yes, I am amused.

6. COP>1, yes. That is another way of defining self-runner. What about it? Yeah.

7. You think everyone should know intuitively what self-runner means? After all, you think the meaning is "obvious". I think this is where you went off the track. I think I know what it means because I have a definition in my mind that I use to analyze and evaluate what people post on this forum. VacuumEnergyMan uses the word in a somewhat different way, so I question what he means. At that point it is between him and me. Now, you come along with the idea that we should both be using the word in the same way. After all, according to you, the meaning is "obvious". Yeah, that's funny. It is so obvious to you, that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that people can have a different view on a subject. It's all so obvious. LOL.

8. Talking to yourself is a symptom of insanity. But, if you talk to yourself in your own mind and only let out the things you want let out, you could say "talking to yourself" is a sign of intelligence. An old saying goes like this. Be quiet and people may think you are intelligent. Open your mouth and you remove all doubt. (Yeah, that's funny, too.)

9. They is whomever you want it to be. It is a non-specific noun. Yeah, I poked you good. You're afraid I mean YOU. I use the phrase "pixy dust", in this context, to refer to "magical thinking". It's another way to refer to fantastic, illogical and baseless assertions and comments that don't really amount to much. Yeah. I have an opinion but why should I say more?

10. Like I said above, I have read some of your posts, VIDBID. If you would like to refer me to some videos or evidence that would build my confidence in your critical thinking skills, I will be happy to take a look, even if I have seen them before. Oh, that's right. You said, "No." You must mean, no, you refuse to seriously defend yourself?

11. VacuumEnergyMan has not posted in the thread, so we can't know that he has received the kudos. What's it to you, anyway? Oh, yeah. That's right. You are defensive because I attacked you. Please accept my insincere apology.


12. VacuumEnergyMan wants to hear some reports about self runners. In fact, he wants to know about a particular type of self runner, and he describes what he is looking for. You, sir, brought up an entirely different category of device. I have no problem with that, per se, but it is not a device with which you have enough knowledge to state that it meets your definition of self runner. All you can say is you don't know. I suppose I should be glad you are participating in the discussion. You can get an A+ for participation. After getting you upset by attacking you, you can't get past your defensiveness to say how much (if any) experience you have with the spiral magnet device. I'm still curious, since I have done my own experiment with a magnetic vortex device of my own design. Oh, well. I suppose the opportunity has been lost. How real is it? Many have been built. Many claims have been made. I am still looking and curious whether there are growing numbers of demonstrations and positive energy balance results. These have been around for many years, but apparently efforts made to suppress the technology have been astoundingly successful.

13. You are asking about energy. There are several definitions in common usage. For my purposes, force=mass times acceleration, work=force times distance, energy=work times time. Energy can be stored as potential energy and kinetic energy. The purpose of the question is get to quantitative analysis of an experimental device. Don't feel you need to respond to this aspect of the discussion, but if a qualitative experiment produces interesting results, one should proceed to quantitative analysis at some point.

14. It seems to me that VacuumEnergyMan is seeking examples of real self runners. Therefore, contributors to the thread should be talking about real and potential self runners. That is about as simple as it can be. Are any of the devices you pointed to real self-runners? Or, are they all potential self-runners? Since you aren't specific to say, I am asking. I think the answer is this. All the devices you mentioned are potentially self-runners. You are, in fact, not making any claims as to any one or more being actual self-runners. In fact, instead of helping VacuumEnergyMan to narrow the field of possible devices, you would have him spread his focus over a spectrum of devices, ideas and theories. If not, state clearly where your reading and experience would have him focus.

15. Seen is a synonym for observed.

16. If you have not seen anything remarkable, you cannot be convinced of anything regarding self-runners.

17. To understand the from and to, you have to have a conception of a system. The experimental builds reported in this forum are systems from a physical science point of view.

18. I have mentioned the main equations and formulas that relate energy, force, mass and time. These are the general starting points for discussing energy science.

Now that I have defended myself and had a little fun at your expense, I will close with my sincere apology. I don't mean to hurt you or injure you. I do want to encourage you to learn more about how people and things really work. That is the way we progress.

SG Self-runner

@aaron, Can you provide a reference to online material about this build? It looks like it may have elements related to some of what I am working on. Thanks.

Self Runners

Hey Vac-Man

Wayne is telling it like it is.

I will post a few video's other than that those who have it running
are not posting it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEzOX10j-D4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKdhnriIpVk



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHdAeTHUOxQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tfAvOXUeY

self runner

I don't recall what was discussed online about it. Peter may have mentioned it several times. I know that cap discharges with a mechanical discharge switch always seemed to be the key to the strongest results. Was important to have multiple batteries in parallel on the back and it was possible that the same one was switched with the from and visa versa and several of the batts in parallel I believe may have never been moved. So if there are batteries 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the back, only #1 was every swapped with the front and the front went to the back and was battery #1 on the back. 2, 3 and 4 might have always stayed the same. So with those receiving big cap dumps, I think they helped to charge up the rotated battery since they would have been higher than that batt.

That pic is from John's old site on Icehouse so you know it has been there for a really long time. That is all on his new site too copied over quite a long time ago.

I'll just have to ask Peter and John next time I speak to them. I don't recall if it was a trifilar with recovery winding or took the spike from a diode - I think it was an isolated winding. And I don't recall if it was the normal SG circuit or the bipolar Cole one.