Basic Free Energy Device

[JohnStone]

Sorry, there will be no such thing like big fat revelation. But along reading through this thread from the beginning I was triggered at some issues, where I might add my penny of experience. I am convinced COP >1 will come along several stages of gain and all need to be optimized to same level.
So I wait and continue watching and will add my penny if the flow of thoughs suggests it.
JohnS

[jettis]

Sorry if I missed something. I relate to the very first post:

John showed us what he said was a working free energy device and stated that we had everything we needed to make it work.
It consisted of:
A battery
A motor
An energizer or generator
A flywheel
A control circuit to pulse the motor and charge the battery during the off time between pulses.

An energizer might make use of a special coil construction. If there is no knowledge regarding this item I set this as task to my list.

Yes I agree... are you really going to reveal this knowledge?

Dave Wing

[Matthew Jones]

Ok I see your going back a ways. Sorry.

Matt

[JohnStone]

Sorry if I missed something. I relate to the very first post:

John showed us what he said was a working free energy device and stated that we had everything we needed to make it work.
It consisted of:
A battery
A motor
An energizer or generator
A flywheel
A control circuit to pulse the motor and charge the battery during the off time between pulses.

An energizer might make use of a special coil construction. If there is no knowledge regarding this item I set this as task to my list.

[Matthew Jones]

Pondering on the question: Is it relevant to consider the CW/CCW direction when stranding the wires and apply them to CW/CCW wound coils?
Sailors have their ropes stranded first e.g. CCW and wind them in the end CW and vice versa. This gives them a compact rope that does not tend to unwind itself.
Applied to electric realm: Depending on the CW/CCW combination the single wires sit there in the coil in different angles relative to the axis of the coil. Is that one detail we need to consider?
How are the original Bedini coils wound. Is there a rule visible. I can't believe he did not ponder on such details. There are so many details that might determine the go or woe of a replication.

Just for clarification on CW / CCW as it is much confusion on this:
a: CW stranded and then wound CW (long lay - might be not correct English)
b: CCW stranded and then wound CW (cross lay - might be not correct English)

If you look this way (see pic) at your wires and go from bottom to top: If the structure goes to right hand it is CW if the structure goes left hand it is CCW. If you reverse your sample 180° it is same (see 2nd pic).
Do not bother any more on looking on top or bottom and confuse it - just look at it in perpendicular orientation.
(That is what I learnt. Does it correspont to common view?)

I am not sure how this second post of yours pertains to the current subject matter? You can drag as much info as you want into this thread as long as you can correlate it with the current set of experiments. Hope to see your setup soon...

Matt

[JohnStone]

Ccw/cw

Pondering on the question: Is it relevant to consider the CW/CCW direction when stranding the wires and apply them to CW/CCW wound coils?
Sailors have their ropes stranded first e.g. CCW and wind them in the end CW and vice versa. This gives them a compact rope that does not tend to unwind itself.
Applied to electric realm: Depending on the CW/CCW combination the single wires sit there in the coil in different angles relative to the axis of the coil. Is that one detail we need to consider?
How are the original Bedini coils wound. Is there a rule visible. I can't believe he did not ponder on such details. There are so many details that might determine the go or woe of a replication.

Just for clarification on CW / CCW as it is much confusion on this:
a: CW stranded and then wound CW (long lay - might be not correct English)
b: CCW stranded and then wound CW (cross lay - might be not correct English)

If you look this way (see pic) at your wires and go from bottom to top: If the structure goes to right hand it is CW if the structure goes left hand it is CCW. If you reverse your sample 180° it is same (see 2nd pic).
Do not bother any more on looking on top or bottom and confuse it - just look at it in perpendicular orientation.
(That is what I learnt. Does it correspont to common view?)

[JohnStone]

Hi Folks,
May I join your community?
But first things first. I was active some time in these matters but life requested tribute and I ceased all activiteis for some years. Now I have some time slots available again and I searched for an active community. What I like here is that multiple approaches are welcome.
I will not start experimenting soon (less than 2 years left up to my retraction) but I want to "sharpen the ax" early in order to populate my lab then severely.

I am an educated engineer in terms of electronics (sorry for that :-)) but I very well understood that text book science propagates just a thinking model that suffices to engineer some few known electric effects. The universe is electric in nature (my opinion) and we engineered only on single plane of the crystal of electricity out of an unknown multitude. This plane is the current based plane in time domain. Conversely what Tesla researched (and others of course) relates to the voltage in time domain. Both interrelate strongly but are not the same. It is like female and male that were created in order to buld a unity but still do not melt to a formless mass.
I want to point out that the current based electricity plane has its beauties and its limits and those facts that can be proved by experiments shall join the research if we want to propagate to the voltage based plane. Remember John saying: "It's all about impedance".
And effects of current and resistance shall be understood in order to refine the circuits. They very well are grounded in mainstream science but shall peak up to the next plane.
So let's continue not ignoring the 'current gender' and falling in love with the 'voltage gender'.
You might feel this is too much of theory and philosophy but you will see in future posts that I am very well grounded in facts and have very well funded suggstioins to present and teach.
Rgds
John

[mainsen]

Hi Dragon,

I did a quick replication of ur setup today. I have a similar wattmeter like you and adjusted boostconverter for lowest Input. When I disconnect the wire between the negatives of cap and negative of battery, consumption shown on meter rises, like you say. But the problem is, the additional negative wire bypasses the current sensing resistor in the wattmeter, which in mine is on negative rail. I checked that. So the value shown is just wrong. Maybe u can check too on which rail of ur wattmeter the sensing resistor is? I ran the test for 10 hours and observed voltage slowly dropping. Started with 12,43V and ended up with 11,84V. Battery was a pretty new 12V 12AH AGM Lead Acid. Im not saying ur setup doesnt work, just in my replication the explanation for the low power value seems to be the bypassing of the current sensing resistor.

Apart from that, i also did some other 3BGS system tests last time, primarily with (BEMF) chargers instead of a Motor between Boostconverter and charge Battery. The reason is i want a selfsustaining kind of looped system, where i charge a 4th battery and with it to be able to put energy back to the other 3, if needed. Sadly all BEMF chargers i have atm perform less than 60% efficient, the first Alexkor i built performed at nearly 90% with one of my batteries, before i refilled it with destilled water. Strangely afterwards charging efficiency with that one also dropped below 60%. So with these low efficient BEMF chargers i didnt reach my goal of a "looped" system.
I measured the energy consumed by the BEMF chargers though (with Lightbulb as load instead of 4th battery), and it seemed to be higher than what the 3 batteries can supply. Around 10%... Without wire losses and boost converter losses it possibly would even have been more than 20%. So i can confirm that there seems to be happening some kind of gain with this 3BGS stuff.

kind regards

[Matthew Jones]

That one is a 6800uf 350volt

Thanks. I wanna test this bit too.

Matt

[dragon]

How big is the cap?

Matt

That one is a 6800uf 350volt

[Matthew Jones]

dave or matt, have you tried hollow sleeve cores, maybe ferrite or anchor bolt sleeves, when comparing different core materials on the generator side. there's some suggestion on the net that this is more efficient than solid cores, in various applications.
i'm currently rounding up the bits to build an adams motor/generator replication, as per hoptoads guide.
cheers.

Good luck to ya I just wanna know the size of the cap dragon is using???

Matt

[voltan]

dave or matt, have you tried hollow sleeve cores, maybe ferrite or anchor bolt sleeves, when comparing different core materials on the generator side. there's some suggestion on the net that this is more efficient than solid cores, in various applications.
i'm currently rounding up the bits to build an adams motor/generator replication, as per hoptoads guide.
cheers.

[Matthew Jones]

How big is the cap?

Matt

[dragon]

Single battery and cap instead of the 24 volt series. Take note of the neg connections... use the grounds as they were intended on the boost circuit plus the bypass...

Even though the neg side isn't isolated the direction of currents are different. I set one up using only the neg of the boost and driving a 3.5 watt bulb required 5.1 watts. Adding the external bypass dropped the wattage to 3.5 watts. If you remove the bypass it jumps back to 5.1 and if you remove the booster output ground it jumps back to 5.1. The diagram below shows the negatives in place.

It took a bit to figure out as I tested amp flow in all areas of the circuit... if you follow the flow of the neg current through the boost you'll see it moves toward the charge battery - while the current flow from the high side through the inverter back to the charge battery is damped by the reverse current flow. Like wise if you don't use the neg on the output side the boost the ability to charge the series battery is damped by the same amount.

The diagram looks redundant with the extra neg connections but once you follow the amp flows and read the meters it all comes together....

One other quick note - it's much easier "dialing" it in with a watt meter connected, you simply adjust it to the lowest wattage possible.

[Matthew Jones]

Hi bob, if by data allocation, you mean you're running out of storage to post images, then i suggest 'imgur', no registering or anything, it's free.
peace love light

Not trying to speak for Bob but I think he means his phone is running out of data.

Matt,
I did try a larger load of 70 watt @ 0.5 amp on the setup but it really dropped the potential difference fast and the inverter shut down. I adjusted the boost converter in both high and low, still same result.
Did you have any better results?
Do I need a higher capacity boost converter?
I did run a 37 watt bulb for a short time, but the 101° heat was too much on me and the system.
Stay cool and hope you have better results.

I haven't done anymore testing, probably won't till Sunday. Picking produce for the weekend Market.
Whats are the specs of your battery. I think you said before but I can't remember. How good of shape are they in?
Sounds to me if the potential goes up real fast like that you might have internal resistance issues. Even my 7 amp hour batteries can maintain a good difference.
You might need to look into building a small charger or something to get them in shape. Just a thought.

Matt