Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[codeboundfuture]

Linear Feed

Hello Woopy,

is the term linear relative to DC ?

I believe that Ufopolitics has always referred to uninterrupted DC as "linear feed", ie. a constant voltage from the source (current draw is linear).

matt

[Farmhand]

It works with DC for me and to jump it just takes one single powerful pulse.
My magnetic field is completely collapsing when I pulse the coil there are some
oscillations after the discharge but they can be dialed out by duty cycle to show
a neat square wave with no oscillations, the thing is the coil north is magnetized
at the same time as the coil south so no matter how short or long the pulses
are if the magnet levitates into the center it will tend to stay in the center if
oriented the same way as the coil or tend to be ejected from the center if the
magnet is oriented the opposite way as the coil. When oriented the same way to
hover in the coil center the magnet in my experiment was first attracted
towards the center then held there by repulsion from top and bottom.

The fact that no pulsing is required and it works with DC tells me the effect
has nothing whatsoever to do with collapsing magnetic fields in fact the
effect is stronger with DC not pulsed.

Mag Lev - YouTube

Cheers

[Ufopolitics]

You are Right

It works with DC for me and to jump it just takes one single powerful pulse.
My magnetic field is completely collapsing when I pulse the coil there are some
oscillations after the discharge but they can be dialed out by duty cycle to show
a neat square wave with no oscillations, the thing is the coil north is magnetized
at the same time as the coil south so no matter how short or long the pulses
are if the magnet levitates into the center it will tend to stay in the center if
oriented the same way as the coil or tend to be ejected from the center if the
magnet is oriented the opposite way as the coil. When oriented the same way to
hover in the coil center the magnet in my experiment was first attracted
towards the center then held there by repulsion from top and bottom.

The fact that no pulsing is required and it works with DC tells me the effect
has nothing whatsoever to do with collapsing magnetic fields in fact the
effect is stronger with DC not pulsed.

Mag Lev - YouTube

Cheers

Farmhand,

Yes you are completely right, and I guess I did not test it correctly before...as I just did now, with different sizes and same coil...it also levitates on straight, linear DC...However the Neo, I just touched two times (by error) the connection and it was ejected out of coil...

Now the "Second Test" will be to put the round or cylindrical magnet into a kind of frame with an axis,all made of copper or non ferrous materials so it could rotate freely...then make same tests...straight DC and Pulsed..

Note: I did not used a resistor...straight from batteries...it goes up, very strong, and of course did not leave it on, but only seconds.

Cheers


Ufopolitics

[citfta]

Hi Woopy,

Thank you very much for making that video. Your video shows exactly what I was trying to explain in post #208. It is very clear the current does not reverse even though it appears the voltage does. If the current does not reverse then I do not believe the magnet field reverses either. To test this idea take two bar magnets and with a sheet of plastic or something between them so they don't stick to one another place them side by side so they are attracted to each other. Then try to push one of them beyond the end of the other. When you have moved it only a short ways you will feel it trying to align back up with the other magnet. This is what is happening in the coil the small magnet is trying to stay in the center of the magnetic field so that it's north pole in as close as possible to the south pole of the coil and it's south pole is trying to stay as close as possible to the north pole of the coil. There doesn't have to be any reversal of the magnetic field for the magnet to stay in the middle of the coil. Thanks to you and Farmhand for trying to clear up the confusion of how coils operate.

Later,
Carroll

Hi UFO HI Farmhand

I made a small replication of UFO's experiment with levitating magnet.

I tried to get the voltage pulse versus the current pulse on the scope.
(notice that for sake of clarity, i have inverted the voltage, channel 1, on the scope screen so the flyback spike do not interfer with the current wave).

And OK i have to make my homework deeper because, from this experiment, it seems that the magnetic flux Does invert at the end of the pulse. Or the magnet should be propelled out of the coil, or fall out when i reverse the coil with the magnet floating in the middle.

And ofcourse what is creating this inversion of the magnetric flux, or is there an other explanation.

Thank's

good luck at all

Laurent

UFO levitating magnet - YouTube

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Citfta

Hi Woopy,

Thank you very much for making that video. Your video shows exactly what I was trying to explain in post #208. It is very clear the current does not reverse even though it appears the voltage does. If the current does not reverse then I do not believe the magnet field reverses either. To test this idea take two bar magnets and with a sheet of plastic or something between them so they don't stick to one another place them side by side so they are attracted to each other. Then try to push one of them beyond the end of the other. When you have moved it only a short ways you will feel it trying to align back up with the other magnet. This is what is happening in the coil the small magnet is trying to stay in the center of the magnetic field so that it's north pole in as close as possible to the south pole of the coil and it's south pole is trying to stay as close as possible to the north pole of the coil. There doesn't have to be any reversal of the magnetic field for the magnet to stay in the middle of the coil. Thanks to you and Farmhand for trying to clear up the confusion of how coils operate.

Later,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

I underlined your statements above, it does not happen as you said.
The Magnet North Up/ Coil North Up, right next to each others, and so on with South to South at bottom...that is how it levitates.
If You reverse Magnet South Up/Coil North Up...Magnet will not levitate...and if it does, it will make it by reversing in the air, paint or mark poles so you see it.

Now in the Inductor Voltage does shifts, otherwise Buck and Booster Converters will not work...as they are based on reversal to forward bias through Diode . Current is the Amperage, the Population...that remains the same, Voltage is a Potential difference, reflecting the Higher Populated area versus the lowest other end...Amperage is an electron density...it actually does not have a traveling sense.

And in order to change the Magnetic Fields you DO need to reverse Voltage, NOT Current, like I wrote above...Current stays the same with Voltage swapping...it is the same population.



Regards


Ufopolitics

[citfta]

Two new serious researchers

This thread has been quiet for a while but I wanted to welcome a couple of new serious researchers. I have noticed "prompt" and "level" both are interested in real measurements instead of wild speculations. to both of you. Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments you desire in this thread. Please stick with the technical aspects of the project you are discussing. No name calling or slander please. You will not be asked to leave just because someone does not agree with your opinion.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Farmhand]

Three Battery System

Hi Carroll, One thing I noticed when first setting up for the experiment is that
during the time the bad battery and motor are first connected and before the
motor starts to spin power would be consumed by the dead battery.

Both the dead battery and the motor are the load.

OK so the first thing I want to collect data on is the amount of power
dissipated into or by the bad battery and motor from the time of first
connection until the supposed output starts, then if the net average voltage
across the resistor shows to be higher on the supply side some charging is
happening, if the other way the supply is still draining. Or something like that,
I'll think some more before I start. The voltage of the bad battery would act
as counter emf so it must be subtracted from the supply voltage to get the
applied voltage. A reasonable figure in Watt hours should be obtainable for the
period up until the motor starts to spin, and maybe even after. Some way may
be needed to detect the time the motor begins to spin. It could take a while.
While that is happening the bad battery is being charged as far as I can tell,
and dissipating heat from it's resistance. Consuming power from the supply
the entire time before the motor starts to spin and produce an output and
also after, at least during part of the time.

Either setup should work in a similar way. I used the top drawing configuration





First thing I will do is try to determine the efficiency.

It depends on how much power it actually is that is consumed in that time
before it can be determined where the starting point (break even point) is for
the efficiency.

Are the other guys considering the power consumed before the motor starts to
spin or before the apparent charging of the supply batteries, a reduction in
the load on a battery will also make it's terminal voltage rise.

This is my provisional theory below, which I need to prove or disprove.

My initial impression is that during the time when the motor is not spinning the
counter emf is only bad the battery voltage basically, then as energy is put
into the bad battery it's charge increases and it's resistance decreases which
slightly increases the counter emf it presents to the supply, then when the
motor begins to spin a counter emf is created in the motor as well, this motor
counter emf together with the counter emf of the bad battery and the spikes
generated by the motor may actually allow a reverse emf to be applied to the
supply batteries. This creates a situation where where the supply was drained
of charge first then when the motor spins up the counter emf increases
enough so that the spikes from the motor (emf) add to the BAD battery voltage
below it like a capacitor and produce a reverse emf to the supply during spike time.

Then there is the "bounce back" effect to consider as well. When a battery is
first loaded the terminal voltage drops initially, then as the chemical action of
the battery catches up the terminal voltage will in fact rise while under
significant load. Which is demonstrable at any time.

Lot's of things to consider.

My first small run showed me that my motor started pretty quickly, it will run
with very little voltage and power. I see 13.5 volts across the bad battery,
and the supply battery voltage is dropping very slightly about 2/100 of a volt
25.3 volts across them so the motor had 11.8 volts across it with 50 mA of
current which is 0.59 Watts consumed by the motor and 13.5 volts by 50 mA
for the bad battery power consumed = 0.675 Watts consumed by the bad battery.

The current sensing resistor has an average current of 50 ma flowing from the
load into the negative of the supply so it is consuming power.

If the resistor showed an average net current flowing the other way the
supply would be charging.

So far these are the things considered before beginning the actual experiment.

Maybe I can model a bad battery with some capacitors, resistors and a small
low voltage battery.


Cheers

P.S. Is there a way to determine the batteries internal resistance while it
holds a charge ? Without a special meter.

Oh and also I don't have a bad AGM or gell cell, I have a bad flooded lead acid
battery with very heavy sulfation in one cell which was dry and has been at
1.3 volts for over 2 years. So there is no reason for the 3BGS guys to take
any of my results on board, because as I was told an AGM is needed.

It is not my intention to prove or disprove any person, I just want to
experiment and see what is happening in my setup. Personally I think the
effect would be a result of the same causes but without a "properly dead"
battery the effect may be less or none. Without some way of producing a
"bad battery" of the kind indicated so they would be very similar from
experimenter to experimenter a replication is impossible.

If "replications" are wanted then a standard system needs to be outlined.
So my experiments will not be accepted as a replication, which is ok with me.

So to sum up the load power measurements.

Total load power = 1.265 Watts

Power consumed by the Bad battery = 0.675 Watts

Power consumed by the motor = 0.59 Watts

Total input power is 25.3 volts multiplied by the 0.05 Amp = 1.265 Watts

Total efficiency is unity. There was no real load except the bad battery and
there is no real way to tell how much energy was taken on by it as charge
(charging efficiency) so I'll just consider it all as output so
0.675 Watts divided by 1.265 Watts = 59 % efficient as far as battery power
in total is concerned, most of that would be losses due to the resistance
in the battery.

Without making any use of the motor or the bad battery the actual efficiency
would be zero or negative.

But all that is beside the point. If the supply batteries do charge.

..

[Farmhand]

I've made several Edits to the last post.

Anyway I want to say that I am totally open to discussing the measurement
protocol, the reasoning behind the theory or whatever else, including
suggestions to better get the desired effect (which I do understand I might
not see immediately and may need to tinker to get it to happen).
This thread is a safe haven for open discussion, so please respect Carroll's
wishes there.

I find it convenient that Carroll is familiar with the system and I hope he can
maybe give suggestion as to how I might produce the desired effect. eg.
bigger motor, a "modeled bad battery maybe". Or whatever. I want to produce
the effect so I can study it, but I refuse to ruin any good batteries and my
stack of bad batteries was taken to the recycling plant. And anyway in my
honest opinion arbitrarily obtaining the "right" bad batteries is not easy for
some, also some bad flooded lead acid batteries could be very dangerous both
with fumes and the chance of explosion if the battery had a loose connection
or something in it (possible sparking). The need of the AGM is much better for safety as well for
sure. We never know what a previous owner may have put into a flooded
battery with filler caps.

I'll make a drawing of a possible "modeled Bad battery". Feel free to laugh,
it's good for the soul.

Cheers

P.S. Maybe a "bad battery" model could look something like this. Of course the
values could all be changed to give a different effect, This setup would have
a standing voltage of the small battery voltage, the small battery voltage
would have 4.2 K resistance to discharge, the total voltage could go to the
supply voltage, series resistance 200 Ohms ect. ect. Surely some kind of
construction could work as a modeled "bad battery".



..

[citfta]

The right "bad" battery

Hi Farmhand,

Yes finding the right "dead" battery is the gist of the whole problem. We don't really know why some dead batteries seem to give the effect we are looking for and why some don't. This I think is the main reason Dave started the thread. He was hoping with enough people trying this setup we could figure out what it was about the dead battery that allowed the system to work. Matt realized that on the one system Dave had that was working really well that Dave was using an AGM battery. So that is one big clue. I have found 2 AGM batteries and one of them seems to be working somewhat but not as good as Dave's. The other one seems to be totally dead no matter what I have done to it.

Several of us have tried to mimic the dead battery with caps and resistors and inductors and anything else we could think of but so far we have not found anything else that would work like the right "dead" battery. Mike Nunnerly has made a suggestion to make a salt battery to replace the dead battery. If I can find some stainless plates I am going to try that and see what happens. I already have plenty of sodium hydroxide from my biodiesel making supplies.

As far as your measuring of power goes I think that might be useful to help understand what is happening in a working system. I don't think it will mean much to anyone if you don't have a system that is working in the "zone". Getting a system into the "zone" takes some patience which I know you have so I hope you can get the right "dead" battery to see what several of us have seen.

Good luck,
Carroll

PS: Glad to see you trying this. If you get it right I think you will be highly surprised.

[Farmhand]

There's no rush, it will take time for me to think and setup some things to
experiment with and such. I may be portrayed as an argumentative naysayer
but I'm not, I just hold my right to an opinion. Like some of the other folks
on the forums I have some medical issues which mean at times I can do little
else but think for long periods of time. The main difference between myself and
the majority of experimenters is time, I have lots of time, but during some
periods, which could last several weeks, I might only be capable of a few
hours actual experiment time. Rather than waste the time I am disabled, I
spend the time on thought by running through setups in my head, sometimes I
dream I'm building and testing circuits that I'm thinking about because I spend
so much time just running logic scenario's in my head. I am a firm believer in the saying
"anyone can do anything anyone else can do, if they want to do it enough".
Providing the playing field is even.

People can be very resistant to my theories and evaluations of things, which
is good, but it makes no sense to me that those same people are so willing to
accept things that others say when there is no more reason to believe them,
and in many cases people cannot explain why they believe the claims of
others, they just do, then reject outright what makes logical sense and can
be demonstrated.

There is always plenty of abuse and snide remarks, accusations of being part
of organised suppression and just plain filthy abuse from the likes of Duncan
and UFO politics ect. when I or another like me gives an opinion on something
that they don't agree with, ( this is coercive persuasion ) a form of mind
control which is very common, it is used on people to try to make them
conform by making the victim feel as thought if they don't modify their
behavior they will end up an outcast, it is also a form of suppression because
it causes people to suppress their own thoughts and opinions and only utter
what is acceptable. Peer group pressure is a mild form of "coercive persuasion".

I don't fall for it and I detest it. Some people are quick to abuse and attempt
ridicule, but when they are proven wrong they often do not apologize for the
abuse, or simply shut up and let it be forgotten.

The amount of time I have spent simply defending my right to my opinion and
battling against people twisting my words ect. is appalling.

When a people attack the person rather than address the issues it is an
indication of an attempt to control behavior or thought, (mind control).
Another tool is hype and catchwords, to bias thought and opinion.

I won't take it, so they ought be be warned. I control my thoughts and my
actions. More people need to realize their own potential.

Argument about the tech is good if it is kept on track.

I know how to bury a hatchet, I have got a shovel, but it makes no sense to
bury the hatchet when under sustained attack.

I don't work well with people who I know detest me, ( i'm not referring to you,
I have nothing at all against you, I have no reason to ), so I feel more
comfortable posting here. This way I won't need to waste energy defending
my dignity. I don't think personal feelings should come into these things.
When talking tech we need to set emotion aside.

I'll take my time and try to consider everything.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Here's m first look at the current through the 0.1 Ohm resistor and the
voltage of the bad battery or (battery number 3), If I'm not mistaken I see
current spikes of up to 6 amps with a resulting bump in the battery 3 voltage.

Three battery test - YouTube

It stands to reason to me that if the system has reached an equilibrium between
the motor and the battery 3, "which it does" by splitting the total applied
voltage of the two supply batteries between the motor and the battery 3,
then because an equilibrium is already reached then any resulting spikes which
increase the voltage of the battery 3 suddenly would cause a voltage across
the motor and battery 3 that is greater than the voltage across the two
supply batteries, thus causing a reverse emf to the supply and charge them
momentarily, kinda like a self desulfator circuit does, it takes energy in from
the supply then with that it produces a reverse emf to be applied to the
battery. Logic tells me that if the motor and the battery 3 have an equal
voltage across them to the voltage across the supply batteries, if then all of
a sudden there is a voltage spike that causes the voltage across the motor
and battery 3 to exceed the voltage across the two supply batteries current
will be caused to flow into the supply batteries, this could be thought of as
reactive power or just a transient reverse emf.

I still think that is what is happening.

Cheers

[boguslaw]

Here's m first look at the current through the 0.1 Ohm resistor and the
voltage of the bad battery or (battery number 3), If I'm not mistaken I see
current spikes of up to 6 amps with a resulting bump in the battery 3 voltage.

Three battery test - YouTube

It stands to reason to me that if the system has reached an equilibrium between
the motor and the battery 3, "which it does" by splitting the total applied
voltage of the two supply batteries between the motor and the battery 3,
then because an equilibrium is already reached then any resulting spikes which
increase the voltage of the battery 3 suddenly would cause a voltage across
the motor and battery 3 that is greater than the voltage across the two
supply batteries, thus causing a reverse emf to the supply and charge them
momentarily, kinda like a self desulfator circuit does, it takes energy in from
the supply then with that it produces a reverse emf to be applied to the
battery. Logic tells me that if the motor and the battery 3 have an equal
voltage across them to the voltage across the supply batteries, if then all of
a sudden there is a voltage spike that causes the voltage across the motor
and battery 3 to exceed the voltage across the two supply batteries current
will be caused to flow into the supply batteries, this could be thought of as
reactive power or just a transient reverse emf.

I still think that is what is happening.

Cheers

Farmhand
I completly agree with your explanation. As I stated on other thread the key factor here is ampere-turns on motor to get the best flyback spike. In fact the whole setup is momentarily the bit DC -DC converter then it formulate the system of two power source opposing themselves with one being of higher potential. And so on, oscillations of slow frequency occur... depending on load across 3 battery.

[Matthew Jones]

Here's m first look at the current through the 0.1 Ohm resistor and the
voltage of the bad battery or (battery number 3), If I'm not mistaken I see
current spikes of up to 6 amps with a resulting bump in the battery 3 voltage.

Three battery test - YouTube

It stands to reason to me that if the system has reached an equilibrium between
the motor and the battery 3, "which it does" by splitting the total applied
voltage of the two supply batteries between the motor and the battery 3,
then because an equilibrium is already reached then any resulting spikes which
increase the voltage of the battery 3 suddenly would cause a voltage across
the motor and battery 3 that is greater than the voltage across the two
supply batteries, thus causing a reverse emf to the supply and charge them
momentarily, kinda like a self desulfator circuit does, it takes energy in from
the supply then with that it produces a reverse emf to be applied to the
battery. Logic tells me that if the motor and the battery 3 have an equal
voltage across them to the voltage across the supply batteries, if then all of
a sudden there is a voltage spike that causes the voltage across the motor
and battery 3 to exceed the voltage across the two supply batteries current
will be caused to flow into the supply batteries, this could be thought of as
reactive power or just a transient reverse emf.

I still think that is what is happening.

Cheers

Duncan apologized why can we not consolidate.

Do you have alot of heat in your Motor? Don't think if was a bounce back from the battery your motor would slow down and heat up?

At first I felt that might be the cause but from seeing Davids results now several times I feel its more than just a little spike going back to the primary on the.

Either way come post you stuff on the thread incase you get lucky and can add some wood the fire.
Matt

[Farmhand]

Hi Matt, Actually I think the theory I came up with is more or less your theory.
After reading the explanation you gave I think you said a very similar thing.
So I can't claim it is my "theory", just that it is the theory I see as likely.
It may not seem like it but I have a lot of respect for you Matt. you're a doer and
you speak your mind, which can only be a good thing. I accept Duncan's
apology, I can put things behind me, and I do understand that there could be
some bias against me, and maybe I should expect that. I don't think Duncan is
a bad guy but I also don't think he has any right to make so many personal
assumptions about me, none of this is about "me" as such, it's about the
technologies. I say something that to me at least makes sense, and he
attacks me personally, in a very insulting way, by insinuating or inferring
(not sure of the proper terminology there), that I am some kind of paid
disinforment or something. Which is defamatory. I don't mind being defamed if
facts are used to do it, but the MO appears to be use some catchy words and
dubious claims of OU to to get others on side then turn them against me
personally, so that my credibility is harmed. Then I must waste time and effort
to defend my opinions and my dignity. To me it seems to be a deliberate attempt
to modify my thinking and behavior to what is "acceptable", or suffer the
consequences. I am not an animal to be behavior modified. Two can play that
game. In fact I'm a bit of an animal "Whisperer". I study an animals behaviors
and instincts and desires and use the knowledge to encourage the animal to
do what I want it to, it works best when they are calm and inquisitive and it can
take a lot of time and patience. It can work with people exactly the same
way. People do it to others without even thinking about it. Positive
reinforcement works best unless the total breakdown of the subjects will is
desired. With positive reinforcement the subject feels as though they have
free will and they do. But with negative reinforcement the subject feels
disciplined and is.

I'm not attempting to create a reaction free posting environment for myself either

I'll be the first to admit that everything I write is not correct, I make mistakes.

I agree those little spikes don't have much power, but who knows the entire
effects of the instantaneous current spikes.

As far as the battery bounce back is concerned, i'm not saying that is the
cause of anything, just that the effect is real and it should be considered
as a part of the process, if it is good or bad is another matter, It may be
possible that the bounce back effect can be used in an advantageous way.
Actually I should say it cannot be bad, it can only just "be" or be useful or not.

The motor I used is a low rpm high torque motor from a printer head drive.
It has 40 Ohms DC resistance, it didn't get very hot, or even warm but I didn't
run it for long.

One thing is for sure this is a very good way to get some initial charge into a
battery with very low discharged voltage, like 1 or 2 volts, a regular charger
will not even look at them and a Bedini type charger can fire up all neons
because of the too high resitance unless very low power is used for a while to
start.. My battery looks like it might rejuvenate but there is the chance it will
fail during the restoration and give me a dead battery. I do have a commercial
charger with a "refresh" function that will deal with these very low voltage
drained batteries, but it takes a long time, it's very gentle (at first).

I had to go back to another project last night to collect some wave forms.
But I will run the system tonight again for longer, however the battery is
already holding 8 volts, I was sure it would have at least one bad cell, but it
doesn't seem so.

One thing I did consider is that there may be a transmutation of some element
within the bad battery that may produce energy from matter under certain
conditions. This could produce a cooling effect maybe, not exactly sure. But
I'm no chemist, but I think if matter gives up energy it causes cooling, but
that is an assumption.

The system can be split in two sides, supply and load sides. The two series
batteries are the supply side and the load is the motor, the third battery and
whatever else is placed on that side as a load.

The third battery is charged directly by the series batteries through the motor
the difference in the voltage split depends on a few factors. But the motor
and the third battery comprise a series load. Any current through the motor is
the same as the current through the third battery, the energy dissipated by
each element is indicated by the voltage drop across the element, there is
not current used twice as it appears, current is current the energy dissipated
or power consumed is calculated by the voltage drop multiplied by the
current. The current alone represents no power or energy as I understand it,
to get power the voltage causing the current needs to be considered.

My point is that 1 amp can flow through both the third battery and the motor.
If either element has zero voltage across it then no power is consumed in that
element. There could be 1000 amps flowing through a circuit element but if
there is no voltage drop across the element then no power is consumed.
Current does not get consumed, power does, energy is dissipated and charge is depleted.

Any return of energy from the motor to the supply would make sense to me as
being reactive power, (unused power from the supply being returned to the
supply).

This is really no different from a regular load. It's just that a load such as a
"dead" battery contains "releasable" energy, which can be released and
increase the power and active energy of the circuit, but I think any increased
active energy seen in the circuit was released from the bad battery.

Until some other rational explanation is given I'll go with that.

The process appears to release previously "locked in energy" from the bad
battery and so can increase the active energy in the circuit.

The main point to remember is that the energy in the bad battery was put
there by people, when it was made or when it was initially charged.

However that is not to say that the process could not be used to advantage.

I think if we consider all these things then we can get a clearer picture.

The term using current twice make no sense, in this setup the same current
flows through two loads, current is a continuous loop. Using that thinking if I
take a series string of 100 LEDs then the current is used 100 times.

One thing I can say for sure is the voltage drop is only utilized once.

It would seem there is some over complication of things.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Here's a setup I came up with a while back, it's hilarious, but it was also very
efficient, the main heat loss was in the mosfet which was not working properly
and acting more as a resistance than anything. The motor also made some
warm. It was self adjusting in a few ways, pretty simple and useful, the motor
could be loaded up pretty hard. Not long after making that video i got it to run
with capacitors in place of the two series batteries. Now that I can use picaxe
the possibilities are many. All it does is use the transformer to maintain an equilibrium.

I do say small "drain" not "gain", my speech is not very clear.

Watching the video should at least give a laugh, at my attempt to explain it if nothing else.

Switchback Drive.wmv - YouTube

Cheers