Basic Free Energy Device

[Sawt2]

Saw2,

Great to hear from you.

You were smart enough to realize something on your own that I have been trying to pound into people's heads for 8 years....the size of the battery MATTERS if you want to be successful. People insist on running things between the positives that draw too much power for the size of batteries they are using and then blame the system for not working.

We have been working on a battery switching circuit for the Arduino using MOSFETS and relays. When we have the voltage sensor part working like we want it to, we will probably release it here.
Dave

Dave
That sounds very interesting, i must say electronics is not my strong suit but i have heard arduino is fairly straight forward to learn, we'll see. The setup i made is manual but i design it so i could attach a variable speed motor to it. I will then just test it till i find an appropriate speed. From what i have seen in my own testing along with several of the ideas you have laid out i truly believe this setup can be made to power things with little to no consumption of the battery's reserve of energy.

[Turion]

Saw2,

Great to hear from you.

You were smart enough to realize something on your own that I have been trying to pound into people's heads for 8 years....the size of the battery MATTERS if you want to be successful. People insist on running things between the positives that draw too much power for the size of batteries they are using and then blame the system for not working.

We have been working on a battery switching circuit for the Arduino using MOSFETS and relays. When we have the voltage sensor part working like we want it to, we will probably release it here.
Dave

[Sawt2]

It's been a while since i posted anything, i'd like to give a little update, I came across the 3bgs thread quite a few years ago, i experimented with it for quite some time, i realized that being able to rotate the batteries on the fly was definitely the way to go. 2 1/2 years ago I set out to come up with a way to do that, i finished building it late last Sunday. So today i got to try it out, it did not work at first so the batteries took a little bit of a beating until I figured out the problem, one of my batteries must have an internal short, the voltage tests fine but as soon as i tried to rotate them, the voltage would go to almost nothing. So after several hours of testing everything i got another battery out and it started working just fine. After getting it to work i ran my modified pulse motor between the positives, the batteries are just too small for that motor. So I ran my sg between the positives for about 2 hrs, rotating the batteries every so often, the 3 batteries almost came back up to where they had started earlier in the day. After disconnecting them, all three recovered to within .08 volts of there starting voltage, i will see tomorrow where they come to rest. My three batteries are 12v 2.9 ah, my sg pulls about 150 ma, and the charge battery on the sg is a partially sulfated 33ah 12v which i have been working on for sometime. Tha charge battery came up about .11 volts during the 2 hr. I want to run some more tests but I am pretty sure bigger batteries would make a difference. I also want to add the boost converter and my modified pulse meter into the mix. I want to try the inverter between the positives too. Now that i have a way to rotate the batteries on the go i believe testing will be much more productive. I want to send a big thank you again to Dave/Turion for sharing this info in the first place and to matt for the info on the modified motor. As I was about to stop typing i remembered, during the runtime, i was also trying different things on the battery that was in the number 3 position, an led taillight, a small 24v motor with pwm and a regular 12v taillight bulb. Can't say yet if it made much difference but i do know that all that energy used didn't seem to "cost" anymore. I will know better in time. That's it for now.

[Turion]

Apology

marathonman,
I wanted to publicly apologize for my response to your contribution the other day. I guess I am so used to folks trying to divert this thread that I just jump without really paying attention.

Figuera's work is incredibly important, and if coupled to the 3 Battery system, the difficult part of what he was doing can be eliminated. Thanks for all the work YOU have done to bring what he accomplished to the attention of everyone, including ME.

Dave

[blackchisel97]

Hi V,

I don't know your setup but if you're running your rotor on one side of the coils only, try sliding the coils a bit back on the cores (away from the magnets), this decreases the output a bit but also lowers the neutral point because it helps the phase shift of the wave we're after. But I guess you knew that already…

Mario

Hi Mario,

Yes, I have them quite far back. I'm trying my larger 9 inch rotor but may go back to the 6 inch setup which has slightly weaker magnets. Those in 9 inch are 0.75 inch dia x 0.75 inch thick. Quite strong.
I have only two six filar coils at this time and yes, both are on the same side.

Thanks

V

[Mario]

Hi V,

I don't know your setup but if you're running your rotor on one side of the coils only, try sliding the coils a bit back on the cores (away from the magnets), this decreases the output a bit but also lowers the neutral point because it helps the phase shift of the wave we're after. But I guess you knew that already…

Mario

[blackchisel97]

Well, I didn't observe anything significant with hollow cores as yet.
I need to wind different coils for my gen as those I currently test have too low inductance. Their serial resistance is (almost) fine, approx. 1.1Ω but inductance of both in series is only 4.1mH. I managed to maintain same speed while dead short but with 5W bulb I was dropping in RPM. It should be better, much better.

V

[Mario]

Hi V, no I have not tried hollow cores yet. Let us know how it goes.

Mario

[blackchisel97]

The other day I was playing with a setup that had welding rods as cores. The shorting neutral point was at almost 100Hz or 6000 rpms. I then replaced the core with two plain soft iron bars of the same size, coils where the same. There was a huge difference since the shorting neutral point was now at less than half the speed. This because in the iron bars there is more iron than in the welding rods which have air space between them, plus in the bars huge eddie currents are created which favour the delay in magnetic response, thus the wave shift, but the bars also heat up accordingly! Output amps are a bit less.

Dave, I suspect with ferrite rods you will have to go faster as they react faster than welding rods, meaning probably higher amps out, but also less wave shift which you will have to compensate with higher speed. Let me know how it goes.

Mario

Hi Mario,

Have you ever tried hollow iron cores - tubes? I just found couple and put them in the way that I can move each, increasing or decreasing distance to the magnets. This may lead nowhere but I want to see it. I also try different coil-magnet distances while running at relatively low speeds. I drive rotor from variable PSU and check rpm while open/loaded/short.
I have to leave for an appointment but will be back later and run more tests.

V

[Turion]

Jettison,
So in your mind it is absolutely appropriate to build a replication using the wrong parts, failing to rotate the batteries, and then declaring that it "Doesn't work" simply because you have done such a poor replication that it is TRUE that it won't work. What is the least bit scientific about THAT approach to research and how can that possibly get rid of confusion? I thought the goal was to see if the system would work when built CORRECTLY? I didn't realize the goal was to slap something together to prove that it doesn't work when built incorrectly.

[Mario]

Dave was talking about putting together some sort of formula, which is not easy. We have all the parameters I listed in my earlier post. This what I gathered:
We want our coil to have high self inductance in order to increase inductive reactance and have the wave shift to a place it doesn't work against the passing magnet. At the same time we want as low wire resistance as possible to get decent amps, but still obtain enough voltage. We want a core that doesn't react too fast to the passing magnet but at the same time doesn't have too many eddy currents which make the core heat up.

Once I have a setup together I start at lower speed (it is very useful to have a variable power supply driving the motor) and work my way up while periodically shorting the coil(s) to see at what speed shorting doesn't affect speed. Once found I call this the shorting neutral point.

From there on (going up in speed) there will be an exact point for each type of load we put on the output where speed won't be affected and the motor runs the same rpms with or without that load.

Lower impedance/resistance coils will be require lower speeds, higher impedance/resistance load will require higher speeds to get to their neutral point.

I can't give exact numbers because each system is different, but say we want to hook a 12V battery with FWBR to the output. The peaks of our waves should be very roughly from 4 to 6 times higher or 50 to 90 or so Volts.
Conventionally this would be a bad impedance mismatch between generator and load, but in this case it's the fact that the battery allows the 50-90V wave to rise only to 12V that creates the shifting effect. I call it going uphill in 5th gear with a car effect, lol.

The other day I was playing with a setup that had welding rods as cores. The shorting neutral point was at almost 100Hz or 6000 rpms. I then replaced the core with two plain soft iron bars of the same size, coils where the same. There was a huge difference since the shorting neutral point was now at less than half the speed. This because in the iron bars there is more iron than in the welding rods which have air space between them, plus in the bars huge eddie currents are created which favour the delay in magnetic response, thus the wave shift, but the bars also heat up accordingly! Output amps are a bit less.

Dave, I suspect with ferrite rods you will have to go faster as they react faster than welding rods, meaning probably higher amps out, but also less wave shift which you will have to compensate with higher speed. Let me know how it goes.

Mario

[Ufopolitics]

Luc's Motor Spec's...

Luc's motor was not a pulsed DC PM Motor... as far as I know. So if that is the case what he is saying is true and I said the same thing. We have to get rid of confusion for people to advance.

Dave Wing

Hello to All,

If You please allow me to add some results about that motor...

Exactly, his motor was NOT a pulsed motor.

[IMG][/IMG]

The Model Number is: C4D17NK7G

You could see the full spec's here:1/2HP LEESON 1800RPM 56C TENV 12VDC MOTOR

This is a typical Brushed Permanent Magnet Symmetric Motor, which means the brushes are constantly shorted out by a constant resistance resulting from series connected coils in a lap winding, which does not allow any On-Off direct connection pulses.

There are several concepts and different configurations about "pulsed motors" where the circuit does not fully opens, rendering a pulse which does not completely drops to zero.

I understand what Turion is referring to as the required Pulsed Motor for his system, consists in open winding coils circuits which drops to zero when it opens then closes to generate magnetic field interactions during operation. This way motor could be connected directly to the System without any controllers to drive it.

Matt's Motor is a pulsed motor that falls in the fully open, fully closed operation.

Asymmetric Motors are also pulsed this way according to their configuration of On-Off Pulses.

This guy on the video below, converts a small Symmetric Motor into a pulsed DC Motor by winding separate/isolated coils with just one commutator, and still, it is a Lap Winding.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CLtlkl6fM[/VIDEO]

...pretty neat job.

In my opinion the motor Luc used for the small batteries is not a compensated system, Motor draws around 39 amps constantly at 12V Input.

This is just my opinion here...my two cents.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[jettis]

Jettis,

I said Luc "probably" used the wrong motor because I couldn't tell from the video if that was a PULSE motor or not, which I have said MANY times is essential. I believe someone pointed out to me that it WAS, but I don't remember. I have to say I discounted his test simply because I KNOW he is incorrect. In his conclusions.


When I said I have done that same test, to determine how long three charged batteries could power a PULSED DC motor running a load as opposed to the SAME three batteries running the SAME PULSED DC motor running the same load in the 3 battery configuration, which is the ESSENCE of what he is trying to determine, I have done THAT test hundreds of times over the last 8 years with extended (beyond what they SHOULD have been) runs of hours, days, weeks, depending on the batteries and their condition when I started. When the batteries are properly rotated you will exceed the rated amp hours of production by MANY times. That is an absolute FACT. That people still want to argue the point after all this time just boggles my mind. But hey, people are entitled to their opinion.

If you choose to accept his conclusions, then the entire premise of this thread is worthless to you and you shouldn't waste your time here. If you are willing to accept that what we are saying is possible and actually BUULD the thing, run it on the right kind of batteries, rotate the batteries and add a little generated power back into the system once in a while, you won't need to listen to me or Luc, because you will know.

The difference here is you BELIEVE Luc is correct and I KNOW he is wrong. It's as simple as that.

If you take the pulse motor out of the system it WILL NOT DO what we say it will do. The pulse motor is essential. That I absolutely agree with

Dave

Luc's motor was not a pulsed DC PM Motor... as far as I know. So if that is the case what he is saying is true and I said the same thing. We have to get rid of confusion for people to advance.

Dave Wing

[Turion]

Clarification

Jettis,

I said Luc "probably" used the wrong motor because I couldn't tell from the video if that was a PULSE motor or not, which I have said MANY times is essential. I believe someone pointed out to me that it WAS, but I don't remember. I have to say I discounted his test simply because I KNOW he is incorrect. In his conclusions.


When I said I have done that same test, to determine how long three charged batteries could power a PULSED DC motor running a load as opposed to the SAME three batteries running the SAME PULSED DC motor running the same load in the 3 battery configuration, which is the ESSENCE of what he is trying to determine, I have done THAT test hundreds of times over the last 8 years with extended (beyond what they SHOULD have been) runs of hours, days, weeks, depending on the batteries and their condition when I started. When the batteries are properly rotated you will exceed the rated amp hours of production by MANY times. That is an absolute FACT. That people still want to argue the point after all this time just boggles my mind. But hey, people are entitled to their opinion.

If you choose to accept his conclusions, then the entire premise of this thread is worthless to you and you shouldn't waste your time here. If you are willing to accept that what we are saying is possible and actually BUULD the thing, run it on the right kind of batteries, rotate the batteries and add a little generated power back into the system once in a while, you won't need to listen to me or Luc, because you will know.

The difference here is you BELIEVE Luc is correct and I KNOW he is wrong. It's as simple as that.

If you take the pulse motor out of the system it WILL NOT DO what we say it will do. The pulse motor is essential. That I absolutely agree with

Dave

[jettis]

No matter how he did the test he reported the wrong numbers. No matter the arrangement of battery or power source the DC voltage is measured from the lowest point to the highest point. It does not matter whether you have series batteries, parallel batteries or some kind of hybrid combination...The voltage is measured from low to high. Thats a FACT!! So his entire test has no premise, the test is wrong, Period..
You have no ability, with meters, to know exactly what is going to the third battery. You have to capacity map the battery and know its internal resistance.
Why anyone would look at the info he reported and believe that LUC knew what he doing is beyond me. If anyone believes that those videos are good information they are already to far gone to fix.

Matt

I do not care about his numbers... Period. All I care about is a known load runtime in minutes in the 3BGS as run by Luc, vs conventional known load runtime in minutes. Compare amp hours to amp hours. Compare the two and see what you get. Take all the pulse motors and generators out of the system and you have straight loss, not gain in any way shape or form. My research tells me this!

Dave Wing