Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[citfta]

Hi shylo,

I think I see what you are doing. Let me explain so if I have it wrong you can correct me. I want to make sure I am understanding what you are trying to do. You have modified an auto alternator by replacing the rotor windings with magnets. And now you want to run it as a motor/generator. And you are wanting to collect the collapse of the field from the drive coils and use that to help the generator side. Do you have a schematic or drawing of your control circuit? You mentioned problems with lock up and I am wondering how you are controlling when the drive coils turn on and off. They have to be timed to the position of the rotor if you are using permanent magnets on the rotor. Please post a sketch of your control circuit so I can get a better idea of the whole system. Then we can talk about what we can do to make it work better. I have used optical sensors and hall effect sensors to monitor my rotor position on my window motor as it also has permanent magnets on the rotor. I also used the original trigger windings but I didn't like the lack of control I had using trigger windings. These are just some ideas of how you can control the coils in relation to the position of the rotor.

Later, Carroll

[shylo]

Just in the process

Hi Carroll,
I've wound many motors ,and am currently trying this idea ..see attached
I'm hoping the field collapses will enhance the generating coils.
But I'm having problems with lock-up.
I'm not good at explaining , but maybe the pics will help.

[citfta]

HI shylo,

Yes the resistance does allow you some control over how fast the field collapses. To get the field to collapse quickly you have to have a control circuit that can turn off quickly with no where for the current to go or at least a path of high resistance for the current to flow through. If you can post a schematic of what you are doing maybe I can see some things that will help you to get better performance from your motor. I worked on motors and motor control circuits for many years. And maybe a picture of your set-up too. I will be glad to try and help in any way I can. Do you have a scope so you can look at what is going on?

I know the idea of a higher resistance speeding up the collapse of the magnetic field seems backwards. But we have to remember the magnetic field is only a function of the current flowing through the coil. If we allow that current to continue through a low resistance the field will collapse slowly. If we don't allow that current to have anyplace to go then the field has to collapse. But at the same time the voltage will go higher as the energy is converted from current to voltage.

Later, Carroll

[shylo]

Resistance

Hi Carroll, In the flywheel analogy, that deals with centrifical force , which is expended. With the movement of the magnetic field , there is a rise and fall.
I don't see how resistance can be helpful.?
Like I said I just don't know.
I thought the coils I wound to drive my motor would produce the best push, and they do .But they don't collapse fast enough , before reversal of flow to continue on. As they travel the PM field reverses.
Does resistance allow you to control , the rise and fall??
artv

[shylo]

Distraction from the thread

That's the real shill.
artv

[Matthew Jones]

The fact that the idiot Farmhand says it won't work is becoming more of reason to look into anything. The idiot Farmhand doesn't seem to be able to make anything work.
That says a lot for the idiot Farmhand.

Matt

[Turion]

Farmhand,
How do you KNOW something won't work unless you build it. Yes, you BELIEVE it won't work based on knowledge and accumulated experience, but KNOW it won't work??? I don't think so. If you're going to take the attitude that something won't work based on accumulated knowledge and prior experience, it is fortunate you were not there when Columbus petitioned to explore the new world, or the Wright brothers first dreamed of flight. I don't know how many times in my life I have been told "That won't work" by people who "KNEW" it wouldn't, and I proved them wrong.

If someone builds something thy say works, it should be up to the people that replicate it to judge whether they have something or are full of crap. If you choose NOT to replicate it because it seems too far fetched to you, well brother, that's your choice. But I still don't believe we should have to listen to people who haven't built it tell us why it won't work. NEITHER do I believe we should have to listen to a bunch of cheer leaders goading us on to spend our money. Those of us who actually build and test this stuff usually look at what the person building it has to say, their results, and decide for ourselves whether or not to build it. All this hype against and FOR different builds is a load of crap and I wish it was eliminated from these threads. They should be for the builders and the testers, and not for the "experts." Because I would be willing to bet that when a major breakthrough comes, it will not be from some "expert." The "experts" never DO ANYTHING. They just talk. It will be from some guy who was told "That won't work." who just flat refused to give up.

Dave

[Farmhand]

Hi Turion, The only problem with excluding non builders is that it creates a venue
where only biased views exist, people who can see there cannot possibly be
something come from nothing or the thinking is flawed will not build a thing they
know will not do as is claimed due to the Laws of Nature. But with your plan
they cannot comment. Most of us who have an alternate point that is valid
will take the time to explain how we see it and give reasoning, without resorting
to personal attacks or character assassination attempts.

ie. I might go to all the trouble of formulating a large post so as not to offend
anyone too much. And in return for my efforts I get personal abuse with no
foundation in reality, that are clear violations of the site rules, rarely is action
taken or the abuse made to be removed.

Now if we all behaved as some of the abusive yea-sayers do the site would
be a cesspool of abuse and filth.

In my humble opinion most are here for the wrong reasons, gotluc says he
won't be posting much more because he has been offered work on the "technology" he is promoting.

Post number 64.
Reactive Generator Research for everyone to share

I put it to all that maybe he was paid to promote and push Thanes
theories before he made the posts and that was the motive of the posts.
He has been pushing Thanes theories for a while, kinda like the guy
OverUnityguide, that did the same thing.

If that was true (not saying it is) then that would fit the definition of a paid shill.

It's madness, any reactive power produced originates from the supply and is
paid for, the power levels shown could probably be the result of one degree
off on measurement. Or simple measurement hardware calibration errors ect.
And any power dissipated by a load is "real power" by definition.

It is simply fiddling the apparatus under test and the test equipment to show
what they want it to, I've done it myself to see it with my own eyes. I can
show what appears to be Over 100% efficiency with a scope considering
power factor/phase angle as well but it is simple a low power measurement problem.

Up the power and lower the load resistance and see if the trend continues.

People want to use thousands of watts of power in a convenient way, a watt
or three cannot even charge a car battery properly, it is of little consequence
and prone to measurement error magnification. When I pass gas I probably
dissipate more than 3 Watts of power.

And encouraging people to experiment with the grid power without any
warnings is irresponsible and ludicrous.

In my opinion there is a strong chance the thread is an attempt to regain
some credibility for Thanes stuff. How many years will he string people along
with no one demonstration of any reasonable amount of power shown as
above 100% total efficiency.

Gotoluc should have used a few more terms like "in my opinion" or "it is my belief",
rather than stating almost everything as though it is a fact and already
proven beyond doubt, don't question or think, just believe. That is what
sheeple do. Prudent discussion involves valid questions.

It's a dangerous and slippery slope to exclude fair comment and only allow
biased input to threads.

Cheers

[Turion]

A Plan

The simplest and easiest way to control both the cheerleaders and the naysayers would be to create an environment where no one was allowed to post a comment until they had shown they had actually BUILT the device in question and had it running, or at least had all the components in place so someone could HELP you get it running.

Once the device is on your bench, you should be allowed to comment on whether it is working or just a piece of junk. There are some of us who would have NO PROBLEM with such a restriction.

Dave

[dR-Green]

I would only disagree that there is no evidence for ANY of the projects on this forum. There are some projects on this forum that have been replicated by several people and they also got interesting results.

Yes I suppose there are interesting things that work. But I have yet to see anything that resembles what the cheerleaders claim or support; in basic terms, machines or circuits that run themselves from energy sprouted out of nothing. And if you point out obvious things that give you free energy (no user input) then they call you a shill, they insist on searching for some magical source while ignoring what's already there. Interestingly the most promising things tend to get the least attention. It's all buried under a big pile of rubbish which is put there by the cheerleaders. Maybe a thread of "recommended" projects would be a good idea, with things that only get nominated after a satisfactory amount of evidence is provided.

[citfta]

I agree with dR-Green almost 100%. I would only disagree that there is no evidence for ANY of the projects on this forum. There are some projects on this forum that have been replicated by several people and they also got interesting results. And there will always be some people that no matter how strong the evidence will refuse to believe in anything that goes against what they want to believe. But I most certainly agree this forum is overrun with cheerleaders that jump on any new idea without any proof or evidence the idea is worth anything. The fascinating part to me is how few of them will even take the time to do some basic study or hands-on research to try and verify or dispute the new idea. I agree it appears their only goal is to mislead serious researchers and promote the snake-oil salesmen to distract everyone they can. Time and time again I have seen threads on this forum where the researchers were starting to make some progress and all of a sudden here come a bunch of new ideas thrown out and false cheerleaders to derail the serious efforts that were making progress.

Respectfully, Carroll

[dR-Green]

This is a general response, not to or about any particular person or thread.

Farmhand said on another thread:

If there are any shills in this situation it is you. Forget attacking me and
address the issues raised. Or not, makes no difference to me but when you
attack me personally it shows the shill likeness in full shining light. Grow up.

Cheers

P.S. Who addressed you anyway Barbosi ? Who made you the detector of "shills" ?

Farmhand is right. The shills are the "yea sayers". They are the cheerleaders who rally up support and excitement regardless of whether the team is useless or not.

Their job doesn't involve being concerned with the team's performance, they are simply there to excite the supporters and attract new supporters.

Got no results, nothing of value whatsoever? Never fear! Call the cheerleaders. They will transform the discussion from a single post (claim) into hundreds of pages.

The moment someone makes a new claim, anything that involves "free energy", these people are immediately there to support it and fend off anyone who asks a question. What do these people know about it that the rest of humanity don't?

They get people to waste their time on useless rubbish through being "enthusiastic" about it, "encouraging" people to spend their time and effort on it, when they have no idea whatsoever of the reality of the claims. These people DO NOT do their own experiments, they simply encourage other people to waste their time and money on it.

They attack anyone who has any doubts or ask for some proof. Asking questions is not allowed.

Is there any proof for ANYTHING that has ever been claimed on these forums, or any other? And yet the ones who ask for proof or evidence are supposed to be the shills?

These people do more harm than good (of course, depending on one's perception and the purpose of their cheer leading). If something doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Insisting "yes, it does work!" when in fact it never can or will simply wastes everyone's time and turns the whole thing into a circus which no serious scientist or engineer will ever come near. So it leads one to suspect that this is in fact their intention.

Therefore it can clearly be seen that the "yea sayers" are the real shills, but they like to twist it around and accuse the honest researcher, the ones who ask for scientific proof and evidence, of being the shill in order to divert people from the issue at hand. The "nay sayers" they say. As if the one who asks for proof is trying to suppress it? Where is the logic in that? Have these "yea sayers" even thought it through?

But now we know why they can only say "yea" so it doesn't matter. The truth of everything is revealed through simple observation of patterns, behaviour.

[boguslaw]

Hi shylo,

Since this is an open discussion thread there are no off topics here.

To try and answer your question as best I can here is the way I understand it. The speed of the collapse is directly proportional to the resistance in the part of the circuit that allows current to flow from one end of the coil to the other. In other words if the return path is of high resistance the discharge will be very quick. If the return path is of low resistance the discharge will be slower. You can observe this on a scope. In the Bedini SSG circuit for instance you can see the very sharp rise and fall times of the spike.

To better understand how this works we need to remember what an inductor is. An inductor resists changes in current flow. When we try to turn on a coil the current flow is restricted until the inductance is overcome. When we turn off the coil the current wants to keep flowing. Now if the current has a low resistance path the current will continue to flow and the magnetic field will slowly collapse at about the same rate as it rose. However if the current is not allowed to flow easily then the voltage has to build to a level high enough to discharge the coil. The extra energy needed to raise the voltage causes the field to collapse more quickly.

Another analogy is to compare the coil to a flywheel. Someone else shared this idea with me a couple of years ago. Think of getting a flywheel up to speed. We apply power and the flywheel starts spinning. Now if we apply a low resistance drag to the flywheel it will slowly come to a stop. However if we apply a sudden high resistance drag the flywheel will stop quickly with a jerk. The sudden jerk to a stop is the equivalent of the higher voltage we get when we discharge a coil into a higher resistance.

Hope these ideas help you understand inductors.

Respectfully, Carroll

Now question arise : what kind of resistance is empty capacitor and what kind is almost fully charged capacitor ? Let's see something interesting : we take big capacitor with very low ESR and empty one and we connect that way so when coil connection to power source is interrupted , capacitor is connected to coil. Next we try the same with fully charged capacitor BUT do you see what I mean by FULLY CHARGED ? Yeah, I bet you see it.... It's kind of stupid question, remember always try to ask more and my advice is to immediately put this in right position asking :
In what context ?

[citfta]

No off topics on this thread

Hi shylo,

Since this is an open discussion thread there are no off topics here.

To try and answer your question as best I can here is the way I understand it. The speed of the collapse is directly proportional to the resistance in the part of the circuit that allows current to flow from one end of the coil to the other. In other words if the return path is of high resistance the discharge will be very quick. If the return path is of low resistance the discharge will be slower. You can observe this on a scope. In the Bedini SSG circuit for instance you can see the very sharp rise and fall times of the spike.

To better understand how this works we need to remember what an inductor is. An inductor resists changes in current flow. When we try to turn on a coil the current flow is restricted until the inductance is overcome. When we turn off the coil the current wants to keep flowing. Now if the current has a low resistance path the current will continue to flow and the magnetic field will slowly collapse at about the same rate as it rose. However if the current is not allowed to flow easily then the voltage has to build to a level high enough to discharge the coil. The extra energy needed to raise the voltage causes the field to collapse more quickly.

Another analogy is to compare the coil to a flywheel. Someone else shared this idea with me a couple of years ago. Think of getting a flywheel up to speed. We apply power and the flywheel starts spinning. Now if we apply a low resistance drag to the flywheel it will slowly come to a stop. However if we apply a sudden high resistance drag the flywheel will stop quickly with a jerk. The sudden jerk to a stop is the equivalent of the higher voltage we get when we discharge a coil into a higher resistance.

Hope these ideas help you understand inductors.

Respectfully, Carroll

[shylo]

Timing

I'd like your opinion, ...does the field collapse gradually, or is abrupt?
Sorry for being off topic.
Just wondering......artv