Hi Carroll,
I am looking forward to this thread. There are so many ideas floating around this forum that it is hard to keep track or know what is real and actually works. (proven to work ie replicated by others)I think that is the true standard of a working idea.
If we can consolidate workable ideas it would give new people as well as those of us who have been here a while a good reference point where to start.
Thanks
Bizzy

No interest

Hi Bizzy,

Thanks for the words of support but apparently no one else feels the same way. I thought this thread would give those people who had doubts or enthusiasm for certain projects a chance to express in a technical explanation why they felt that way. Maybe they don't really have any technical reasons for why they believe in a certain project. Maybe they just have a "gut feeling" it ought to work and can't really explain why they think so.

Another project I have just spent some time looking at is the thread by soundiceuk about the ION Energy receiver. That circuit is just the beginning of a radio receiver. The only difference is it is not using tuned stages for the input or output so maybe that will increase the power received somewhat. I am having a hard time believing any useful power can be obtained that way. For anyone interested in the radio principle used here just look up "superheterodyne receiver".

Later,
Carroll

I had a gut feeling and still kinda have a gut feeling the DS device works, but have no means financially to really peek inside. Dealing with high voltage requires some nice equipment and expensive parts. I stopped working on it because all of the tests I ran on it yielded no cop > 1, and without good equipment, its a lot of guess work. Maybe Don left something out, I dunno. I've moved on to a lower and more controlled environment.

Hi Carroll, As far as motors go I think they are already quite efficient, there
is benefit to recovering the coil collapse from switched coils, but from what I see
if the motor is pulsed the max power is reduced, and when loading a
pulsed motor if the motor tries to maintain speed the input power will increase
and the recovered energy will be more. When a pulsed motor with recovery is
accelerated by increasing the voltage input, the recovered energy is less.

This all tells me there is no free energy in a motor, all that is possible is closer
to 100% efficient. Motors are for delivering shaft power and if we reduce
maximum input power we reduce maximum shaft power, it's the in between area's where
people see what appears to be extra energy because they reduce the input
by pulsing or removing windings and recover some energy, but under full load
at full power they cannot perform as a regular motor would in my opinion, only
slightly or partially loaded motors can afford to lose "on" time to get the
recovery in my opinion and I doubt it will ever be more out than in in a modified motor.

To improve a motor I think it needs to keep the same shaft power or more
and reduce input. Testing shaft power is not simple, using a generator could
work for testing but won't give a hard figure to compare so I have little
expectation any improvements will be made unless to already inefficient
motors. Almost a waste of time trying to improve on 97% efficient.

Cheers

Hi drak,

Thanks for joining this thread. I have a few problems with the DS device as I posted earlier. I watched a couple of videos where Don was describing his device. He claimed it was not using any new technology just applying what we already know in a new way. He went on to say the way his transformer circuits were working came right out of the Radio Amateur's Handbook. I am a radio amateur and looked up the references he gave. They had nothing to do with what he was talking about. His explanations also didn't match up with any thing I have been taught. I know we have to keep an open mind about what we think we know and I have spent a lot of time and money looking for the device that will give us free energy. But his explanations just didn't make any sense to me at all. Another problem with his device is the spark gap. Most people don't realize how much electrical noise they are putting into the air when they are running a spark gap. If you have any close neighbors you are likely messing up their TV and stereo reception. So any device with a spark gap is just not practical. And after just a few hours of run time the gap has to be adjusted again as it burns away the end of the electrodes.

If you don't mind sharing, what kind of device are you working on now?

Respectfully,
Carroll

Pulsing motors

Hi Farmhand,

Most of what you said about motors is true. On a lot of the machines I worked on we had to have motors big enough to get a large mass moving. Once that mass was moving then we didn't need all that power. So at that point using PWM we were able to power the motor as if it was a smaller motor than it actually was. This is the case with a lot of motors used in industry. They are almost never run at full power. So in those cases pulsing the motor with a PWM controller is really a good idea and lets the motor run cooler and uses less power. The PWM also lets us control the motor speed more easily than some of the older systems that used the thyratron tubes. The PWM also lets us control the torque in cases where we don't want to overly stress the motor or other components with a too rapid start up.

Now the question still remains is pulsing the motor a good way to try and get OU. I agree with you that we probably are not going to get more from a motor just by pulsing it. However as Bizzy has shown we can pulse the motor when it is tied to a very efficient generator and get a machine that appears to be doing the same thing as the Watson/Bedini machine.

Later,
Carroll

Looking closely at the inductive collapse of a coil.

Hi drak,

Very good, Farmhand has also studied that quit a bit. When you feel you have a handle on that please come back and share what you have learned. Also if you need any help just ask. I have over 50 years experience in electronics. And I am still learning.

Carroll

Well, I could have someone check my math before I finish this first test run. Can I pm you a pdf to look over and tell me if my equations are correct before I post the results?
Or Farmhand, he seems to be good with the math.

Yes

Yes drak feel free to PM me and I will look at what you have. My math in electronics is a little rusty but I have a lot of reference material and can use it to check what you have.

Later,
Carroll

Technical details

Hi Carroll,

I would like to support your initiative. It has been very hard for me to get to the design details that I am seeking in building replications of some of the devices discussed here in the broader forum. Some builders are very positive and excited but reluctant to be specific. I can understand that. They either want to profit financially or are afraid of the established energy players. They can do whatever and believe whatever. I don't want to call them names, say they are cowards, or whatever. I think those of us that are a bit more open can still have a reasonable discussion. My electronics, physics and science background make me rather sceptical, but I am open to the possibilities. I have experimented with magnet motors and copper coils of various configurations. If I had OU results to share, I would do so. But, as of now, the general rules of physics, thermodynamics, electricity, magnetism, etc. have held true.

My beef with standard physics and math is that as scientists we have observed the physical universe around us and created a mathematical model of how the universe operates. That is appropriate, well and good. What we as scientists do next is conjecture and speculation. We take our math and models and assume that as a whole construct these things are accurate and true and we stop doing basic research to find ways around the issues that prevent us from reaching our goals. We need to break out of that mindset and do some basic testing. In that way we will get REAL results and real knowledge and understanding of how the universe operates. Instead of assuming that we know everything, we should test the limits of what we think we know.

When I do a web search for formulas for building coils and finding resonant frequency, etc. I am astounded at the limitations and qualifications that go with the formulas. For example, a formula may only be applied in a vacumn or at certain frequencies or temperatures. Charts and graphs are inappropriately scaled or interpolated.

When I look at reports in this forum, voltage, energy, work and power are confused or used inaccurately. One needs to be well versed in physics and engineering. Both are needed to discern what is actually happening. Are the reported results accurate and useful? Is enough being revealed to enable the builder to approach a design from the basis of an internal model of how things should work?

For example, you can find an electronic circuit to "control" a windmill or solar array and charge up a bank of batteries. This is an example of true free energy, no expenditure for the energy, only for the equipment to collect the energy. You will find people collecting energy in a variety of unusual ways. You can find an explanation for why Don Smith insists that his device have a good, reliable earth ground. Why is that needed? Is the given explanation reasonable? There is a well known difference in electrostatic potential between earth ground and an elevated point some distance above ground. Is this the secret of Don Smith's device? Where does Don Smith talk about an antenna being required? Is there some other source? If it works, why does it matter? I think it DOES matter, and I would like to be able to back up my idea with some experiments.

Excuse the length of this rant, but I'm not quite done. Another technology that is fascinating to me is the replications around the work of Stanley Meyer. I have not seen any basic research around the relationship between electrolysis and temperature, pressure or electric field. For example, if an electrostatic field were created around an electrolysis cell, could one alter the amount of the gases produced? And, would the total energy input per unit of gas produced be constant?

I don't have the finances to do anything about it, but I am also curious about LENR and the work of Rossi.

To me, these are technical questions that fall within the guidelines you suggest for this topic. I don't live 24/7 on this forum, but I look forward to your thoughts.

Good observations and I agree with some of your sentiments wayne.ct. The details are very important. It has recently become obvious to me that the main reason there's confusion over replicating the "greats" accurately is due to the fact that everyone is free to attribute whatever terms they like to what they have in front of them, so like Chinese whispers the message gets distorted at every step of the way. Then you end up with thousands of devices, with none of them being able to replicate what they set out to do. Then all the sources of "information" over the internet repeat the same information, people making web sites based on information they've seen on youtube and so on, and the whole thing spreads out of control. Then there's just total confusion with people in awe of how someone managed to do it in the first place, because no one else out of the thousands is able to do it even though they apparently have all the information, they saw it all on youtube, so it doesn't make any sense! Hehe.

Hi wayne.ct,

Welcome to the thread. I finally decided to start this thread for some of the reasons you have stated. I also believe we need to be educated if we are ever really going to make any real progress. I have seen several instances on this forum where someone comes along and starts talking about this great discovery they have made. A lot of the time it is really only a normal effect they just weren't aware of before. I have tried to help those individuals by pointing them to info that will help them understand what they are seeing. Sometimes I have been thanked and sometimes told to mind my own business. And sometimes I have been accused of being a naysayer. I do believe in the possibility of free energy or OU but I have only seen some brief glimpses of it so far. But I have seen enough to convince me to keep trying.

There are some threads on here that I think might really be onto something but only time will tell for sure. One of the most promising is the 3BGS or three battery generating system. I have seen some strange things working on that one. But still haven't achieved OU yet.

As I posted a couple of days ago I am still undecided about Ufo's motors and machines. His designs look interesting but his silly references to witchs and all that other stuff about assymetrical this and that just turn me off.

Looking forward to your participation and thanks for joining us.

Carroll

Searle-Carr gravity generators.

Hi Carroll, There is a PDF attached which might be interesting to all you guys.
The effects produced remind me of the effects claimed by Otis T. Carr in the
50's during a radio interview. I see it as "planetary" or "solar system"
technology. I think the Searle device supports the viability of Carr's device
being real. The Seale device would appear to be a real deal free energy
machine. I think the principal is the very best kind but Searle uses permanent
magnets Carr did not.

I started a thread about Otis T. Carr not long after joining this site, he is what
got me on the free energy hunt. This is how open minded I am, I think Otis's
craft was legit. But I think the teleporting claims by Ralph Ring are bogus and I
think he may have been "bought" to discredit Carr by making fantastic
unbelievable fantasy type claims. If there was no suppression and he knows
how it was build why would no one be asking him to help build one and why
would he not want to.

Otis T. Carr

I think I am beginning to understand how it may have worked as a machine.

If anyone needs any incentive to continue research I think the PDF has it.

AS far as I can tell some of the effects produced by the Searle generator in
Russia are not explained by known or accepted physics. The description of
the carona kinda reminds me of the carona envelope i got around one of the
extra coils I had on my Tesla transformer. I think I have a picture if I find it i'll
post it in the Otis thread. It comes out of the top and bottom turns of the
extra coil like two umbrella's one inverted and they can meet to form an almost complete
envelope like a donut. Very difficult to photograph or film though.

Cheers