Basic Free Energy Device

[voltan]

hi all. just curious to see if my interpretation of lenz law is in line with the general concensus out there.here's a pic of a generator. the way i understand it, with the rotor turning clockwise, if generated current is flowing in stator coil 1, at this point of rotation, then it's core will develop a south pole, facing the departing rotor pole north. at the same time, if generated current is flowing in stator coil 2, at this point of rotation, then it's core will develop a north pole facing the approaching rotor pole north. this is why it takes a lot of work to generate a lot of power.
when you run a motor with no load, the rpm it runs at is the point where the simultaneously generated voltage,which is back emf, reduces current to where the motor can't spin faster, for a given input voltage. if you then mechanically drive that motor faster it reverses the current flow, and the motor is now generating.
it's interesting to contemplate what would happen when 2 motors are coupled with a ratio like 2:1, and tried with different placements in 3/4 bgs setups, or other types of circuits.
cheers.

[Turion]

If you notice i said it SHOULD give you more flux. I wasn't sure it would, and that is NOT the design I am trying anyway, although I think it might be what Bob is doing, since he is adding magnets to a kit he already had.

Matt designed a mo/gen from scratch and we do NOT know if it will work, which is why I didn't disclose it in the first place. Time will tell.

Dave

[RUE]

I wasn't going to disclose what I was doing until I had a WORKING prototype because I hate leading folks down a dead end road. Bob is working on a design of his own using a kit he has already purchased, but I will say this much. If you have a rotor magnet between a coil core it is attracted to and a neo that is pushing against the rotor magnet from the other side in opposition, you better have a dang strong rotor or it is going to flex. Also, the magnetic field of the rotor magnet is being deflected by the magnet in opposition back into the coil which SHOULD give you more flux and an increase in output.

The magnets in opposition give you a free-wheeling rotor, but these magnets MAY need to be adjustable because the attraction to the core CHANGES. This is why we wanted a working prototype before disclosing. You can offset the rotor magnets attraction to the coil core with a much smaller and weaker magnet since repulsion of two magnets is much stronger than attraction of magnet to steel or iron. We have a prototype we are testing, and when we have it all working we will share. Not until. Sorry.

This is simply an APPLICATION of something MadMack showed us. How many of you saw THAT and thought of something like THIS?

Matt designed and machined the prototype and is doing the electrical circuit for it. I am putting it together and winding coils. Bob may have his running long before we do since his kit is together already and he is just adding opposing magnets. You probably won't here much from us about this until it is working, so don't hold your breath.
Dave

Dave,
When I tried that with an opposing magnet on the opposite side my coil output went down or it decreased the rotor magnet flux so less output from coil.Will be interesting to see the results.

Joe

[Turion]

Magnetic Neutralization

I wasn't going to disclose what I was doing until I had a WORKING prototype because I hate leading folks down a dead end road. Bob is working on a design of his own using a kit he has already purchased, but I will say this much. If you have a rotor magnet between a coil core it is attracted to and a neo that is pushing against the rotor magnet from the other side in opposition, you better have a dang strong rotor or it is going to flex. Also, the magnetic field of the rotor magnet is being deflected by the magnet in opposition back into the coil which SHOULD give you more flux and an increase in output.

The magnets in opposition give you a free-wheeling rotor, but these magnets MAY need to be adjustable because the attraction to the core CHANGES. This is why we wanted a working prototype before disclosing. You can offset the rotor magnets attraction to the coil core with a much smaller and weaker magnet since repulsion of two magnets is much stronger than attraction of magnet to steel or iron. We have a prototype we are testing, and when we have it all working we will share. Not until. Sorry.

This is simply an APPLICATION of something MadMack showed us. How many of you saw THAT and thought of something like THIS?

Matt designed and machined the prototype and is doing the electrical circuit for it. I am putting it together and winding coils. Bob may have his running long before we do since his kit is together already and he is just adding opposing magnets. You probably won't here much from us about this until it is working, so don't hold your breath.
Dave

[[email protected]]

Neutralizing Magnets

Hey Dwane,

With what Dave is doing, the coil cores are not so much affected, just the rotor magnets. The neutralizing effect is simply an opposing magnet centered with the core, but on the other side of the rotor magnet. It simply pushes the rotor magnet away while the core is attracting it. The neutralizing magnet is not intended to affect the core itself much.

If the rotor magnet pole facing the core of the coil is N, then the other side of the rotor magnet is S and so the neutralizing magnet would be a S so as to repel it. When the rotor magnet crosses the core it will affect it with a N force creating an effect, then as it passes, and moves out of the way, the neutralizing magnet will have a S pole affect on the core (if any, as it is not very close and weaker than the rotor magnet) which would help in reversing the core (increasing its collapse speed which would increase output if anything).

Hope this helps,

Bob

[Matthew Jones]

Its funny how most great things discovered can be dumbed down to bad math.

"2 + 2 does equal 5, I am just not able to tell you how"


Matt

[OrionLightShip]

I spoke of high joule outputs from the dump caps. So to give you an idea of where I think I am gaining energy, my input is approximately 12.58v x 12.5a giving approximately 157.25 watts per pulse.

Dwane

Hi Dwane, sounds like an ambitious project and I am curious about your magnetic feedback loop?

As far as power per pulse goes, you would really have to calculate the number of joules in your cap and divide by the time (J/sec) it takes to discharge. That would tell you how many watts are in a pulse. It might be quite high depending on the inductance and resistance of the coils. However, it matters not if you have megwatt pulses, your average input power is still only 157.25 watts.

So where is the gain mechanism that you think will yield all of this power?

[bistander]

Power???

... gives me approximately a 1ms pulse of 2.5 megajoules.

Hi Dwane,

That equates to 2.5 GigaWatts or about 3,300,000 horsepower. Impressive, to say the least. That is about equal to the power of a medium size lightning bolt.

bi

[Dwane]

I still have the rise and fall. I still have the "pulsing of the magnetic moment".
I have every advantage of the magnet passing by the iron core of the coil, but have simply neutralized the locking affect that magnet has to the coil core. I definitely have not neutered the system. Instead, I have a rotor that will turn with a very weak pulse from a motor coil (which it would NOT do without that (magnetic moment) while I collect the energy from the "magnetic moment" that takes place with the rest of the coils, which are all generator coils. Very, very little input and a whole lot of output. Maybe. It works on the single coil model. I haven't finished my first prototype yet. Should have the mechanical build done tomorrow and then Matt will be sending me the board next week. Hopefully. But I will be gone until next Friday anyway.

Dave

Good Luck!

Dwane

[Turion]

Response

I still have the rise and fall. I still have the "pulsing of the magnetic moment".
I have every advantage of the magnet passing by the iron core of the coil, but have simply neutralized the locking affect that magnet has to the coil core. I definitely have not neutered the system. Instead, I have a rotor that will turn with a very weak pulse from a motor coil (which it would NOT do without that (magnetic moment) while I collect the energy from the "magnetic moment" that takes place with the rest of the coils, which are all generator coils. Very, very little input and a whole lot of output. Maybe. It works on the single coil model. I haven't finished my first prototype yet. Should have the mechanical build done tomorrow and then Matt will be sending me the board next week. Hopefully. But I will be gone until next Friday anyway.

Dave

[Dwane]

Dwane,
I am not cascading through coils in series.

To be completely honest, right now I am concentrating on what I have learned about the physical aspects of the build in order to put together the easiest to assemble, strongest, and most productive assembly I can come up with that neutralizes magnetic attraction, doesn't suck the magnets out of my rotors over the long haul when the stresses of running for long periods of time take their toll, and gives me a platform to continue to experiment with the electrical side of this work. I am fairly well convinced that eventually I WILL run this as a mo/gen without the need for the razor scooter motor to drive it. And if Matt and I don't come up with a realistic way to do that, others will once we show how we've put all these different things together in one unit. It will be a while until the next prototype is built. It costs money, and I have to be a little careful about spending for a while. I was forced to buy a new car when my old one died, and that was a large expense I hadn't counted on. So my big gen may have made it's last run except for show and tell when people come over.

Matt built a small prototype unit that incorporates most of what we know and understand that I will be trying to get together this next week. It will incorporate many of the things YOU are working on because it will be self driven rather than driven by an external motor. I have the coil cores made, but now I need to spend some time winding coils. I hope to spend the entire day Monday doing that, and get the little prototype put together. Matt is working on the electronics part of it right now. If it works, and is a self runner, we will be showing it on the forum so folks can replicate. That may be a couple weeks away, since I leave for Arizona in five days and will be gone for a week.

I will keep you posted on the progress on both machines.

Dave

Hi Turion,
Just a short reply. If you are working of what I am led to believe is a Bedini Free energy Generator, then neutralising the magnetic force will "Neuter" your machine. Critical to the development of energy into the caps, for example, is the positive rise and fall and negative going return energy. Completely reliant on the pulsing of the magnetic moment.

Understanding the issue, in this particular machine, of the magnetic moment is fundamental to achieving "self excitation" of the unit. It is this concept that has allowed me to create a pulsating magnetic feedback loop that is running at about 3000rpm. Each pulse is over the combined eight coils and is drawing approximately 12.5a. If I set up a tuned circuit, whereby my coils are each terminated by a "Smoothing" cap in series with the positive battery terminal I can create a minimised voltage system that is supplied by the batteries, but is fed back to the batteries as a charge dump and not as a specific energy loop from negative to positive. Hence, the load is load removed from the battery and transferred to the caps. And importantly, the dumps caps following the FWBR are being charged with both forms of energy supply - positive and negative.

If you refer to my previous reply, I spoke of high joule outputs from the dump caps. So to give you an idea of where I think I am gaining energy, my input is approximately 12.58v x 12.5a giving approximately 157.25 watts per pulse. Therefore, calculating 3000 rpm, -> 50 hz, thus 25 cycles gives me approximately a 1ms pulse of 2.5 megajoules. But, as I am using stored energy, this figure is only a temporary answer with a more fundamental examination of the initial charge discharge process to be determined when the system is operational. I leave it to you to do the conversions watts to joules and vice versa to see what I think my energies are.

I'll know if these figures add up when I finish building the loop and incorporate the motor. As with all these optimistic figures, when one starts to draw down with a load, there are often times, significant changes to them. Anyway, it is looking good so far.

Hope this helps you with your circuit design.

Regards

Dwane

[Turion]

Progress

I am the kind of person who trusts everyone, but ALWAYS cuts the cards when playing poker, so when I come up with some off the wall thing I believe will work, I share with a number of people. Some by phone, some by internet, some by personal contact and some by snail mail. Just to make sure my whacky idea is out there for more than one person to think about.

I recently came up with an idea to neutralize the magnetic attraction the permanent magnet has to the coil core while the rotor is spinning the magnets past the coil to create electricity in a generator. I built a little test unit with one coil and only a few magnets on the rotor to prove it would work, and shot a video, which I sent to those people. It DOES work, and I am in the process of rebuilding my entire generator to take advantage of this. I may have to go through a few prototypes to get everything to work right, but this is not going away. It's hard to do, and it takes a precision build, but it SEEMS to be absolutely possible. In case you were wondering, YES, this is a patentable idea. But I'm not filing for a patent. Instead, Matt and I are building a small prototype we can share here on the forum (IF WE GET IT WORKING CORRECTLY) that anybody with access to a CNC or 3d printer will be able to build. It SHOULD self run. It will have one motor coil and four generating coils, and using the right circuit, we can recover most of the tiny bit that needs to go into the motor coil to make the thing spin. I'm taking mine to Arizona with me to work on and show my son who is an engineer. By the time I get back at the end of next week, I should have all the construction phase done. The only missing piece could possibly be the electrical circuit that Matt is working on. But it is coming soon.

You guys who rewound your razor scooter motors into pulse motors like we told you to are gonna LOVE building a little generator you can spin like a screaming eagle running on milliamps with the 3BGS boost circuit to reclaim most of the energy you put out, and generating butt loads with a generator that has magnetic lock neutralization and speeds up under load. We're almost there guys.

When you have a freely spinning rotor, it takes almost NOTHING to get the rotor to spin and keep it spinning. A single pulsed coil will turn a rotor of almost ANY size. I can even adjust it for the different loads on the generator which affect the attraction of the core to the passing magnet. Although I have to do this by hand by observing the rpm of the motor, it can be done. But when you have it adjusted, and have a generator that speeds up under load, no FURTHER adjustment may be necessary. If it does NOT speed up under load, I'm pretty sure there are some sharp folks around who can come up with a way to have it adjust automatically using sensors.

The biggest obstacle you have to overcome with the generation of power is this attraction of the magnets to the core. It's why we use the power of rivers to turn our generators. Imagine what kind of output we will be able to get when you can rotate N52 neos past the coils like they were not even there. And turn great big rotors with a tiny little motor that runs on milliamps.

That's what I want for all of us, and I believe it is possible. I hope some of you will come along for the ride. Should be fun.

Dave

[Cornboy 555]

erfinder,
Wow. Way to get fired up over nothing. If you have bothered to read the 3BGS thread, you would know that we have been running a DC motor as a motor AND a generator at the exact same time for like 10 years now, and have disclosed the circuit to do that with an off the shelf DC motor countless times. Set it up, measure the input to the motor and the output FROM the motor and you will see that's EXACTLY what is happening, and without all the complicated switching. So PLEASE don't tell me I "DO NOT GET IT" Just because I am finding a different way through the forest does not mean it isn't a "way" and it may be better than yours.

You deride me for comparing "input" to "output". I don't. I never have. I stated very clearly that I compare the power USED by the system, regardless of input (since better that 80% can be recovered) to power output by the system. By power used, I mean power that has been input into the system and for a variety of reasons, is no longer available to do work. Whether it be friction losses,losses in the circuit itself or whatever. And I put it in EXACTLY those terms, and emphasized that I do NOT consider power that is recovered as power "used" by the system, regardless of input. The comparison of power USED in watts vs power produced in watts is necessary to evaluate what you have. If you can't understand that it is of no use to build a machine that puts out 300 watts if it consumes 400 watts to produce it, then I feel bad for you.

If you will notice, I ALSO admitted that there might be a way to run this generator as both a motor and a generator. I said that. It's right there in writing. I also said I have yet to see a way to do that which is more productive than what I have. MY goal is to get a unit out there that incorporates all the things that I have learned that make a system COP>3 and probably MUCH better than THAT, so that others can replicate and improve on it. If YOU choose to show us how to make it run as BOTH a motor and a generator to eliminated the need for the external motor, and it produces MORE out for the same amount consumed, I would beHAPPY to throw the motor away. But you won't do that will you? You would rather just argue about who is smarter and who has the better machine instead of working for the common good. Building the best machine I can build with what I know now is what I am going to do. YOUR whining about what I know and what I don't know isn't going to stop me. Then you can show us how yours is sooooooooooo much better. But you won't do that will you? Didn't think so.
Dave

[Turion]

erfinder,
Wow. Way to get fired up over nothing. If you have bothered to read the 3BGS thread, you would know that we have been running a DC motor as a motor AND a generator at the exact same time for like 10 years now, and have disclosed the circuit to do that with an off the shelf DC motor countless times. Set it up, measure the input to the motor and the output FROM the motor and you will see that's EXACTLY what is happening, and without all the complicated switching. So PLEASE don't tell me I "DO NOT GET IT" Just because I am finding a different way through the forest does not mean it isn't a "way" and it may be better than yours.

You deride me for comparing "input" to "output". I don't. I never have. I stated very clearly that I compare the power USED by the system, regardless of input (since better that 80% can be recovered) to power output by the system. By power used, I mean power that has been input into the system and for a variety of reasons, is no longer available to do work. Whether it be friction losses,losses in the circuit itself or whatever. And I put it in EXACTLY those terms, and emphasized that I do NOT consider power that is recovered as power "used" by the system, regardless of input. The comparison of power USED in watts vs power produced in watts is necessary to evaluate what you have. If you can't understand that it is of no use to build a machine that puts out 300 watts if it consumes 400 watts to produce it, then I feel bad for you.

If you will notice, I ALSO admitted that there might be a way to run this generator as both a motor and a generator. I said that. It's right there in writing. I also said I have yet to see a way to do that which is more productive than what I have. MY goal is to get a unit out there that incorporates all the things that I have learned that make a system COP>3 and probably MUCH better than THAT, so that others can replicate and improve on it. If YOU choose to show us how to make it run as BOTH a motor and a generator to eliminated the need for the external motor, and it produces MORE out for the same amount consumed, I would beHAPPY to throw the motor away. But you won't do that will you? You would rather just argue about who is smarter and who has the better machine instead of working for the common good. Building the best machine I can build with what I know now is what I am going to do. YOUR whining about what I know and what I don't know isn't going to stop me. Then you can show us how yours is sooooooooooo much better. But you won't do that will you? Didn't think so.
Dave

[erfinder]

On another thread on this forum, an individual intimated that I am less far along in my progress than he is because I am using a motor separate from the generator. When I asked him if he had been able to loop his system he replied that he had no interest in looping the system. I do.

You are far less along in your progress because you do not see that the motor is a generator. Whine all you want, you know it's true, and if you don't, its recommended you invest more time investigating the suggestion than in trying to justify your ignorance.

Ignorance motivates the question of whether my device has been looped. The obsession with looping is paralyzing progress of not only what you do but what the majority of folks do. My objective is finding the mechanism for accomplishing unity. Like most you ask the wrong damn questions. Wrong questions come out of garbage interpretations which come out of trying to find secret sauce. The right question would have been "How close are you to unity?" The logical next question, "How do you go about accomplishing unity?" After getting a logical response which would have given you the relations between my unity generating mechanism and recovery, you could have moved to the next series of question. No instead of being smart and open like you portray yourself to be, you return back to the mediocre, and give another person your negative opinion of me as if I were not in the same room?!

Build you a system and loop it, I repeat, I don't care about looping, and don't care if you do. Without a plan, without an understanding of how the circuit can sustain itself you're wasting your time. But hey, it's your time, waste as much as you like.

Here is my view on this issue. For me it is as simple as the answer to one question. What combination gives me the MOST usable energy production in watts of power compared to the watts of power used by the system. Notice I did NOT say "input" into the system. I said "used by the system". When I can put power in, but recover it, I do not count that as power "used by the system" for obvious reasons.

You don't say input, however, from your description one can see you are still comparing input versus output. It's ok, you don't know any better. I already suggested what combination gives me the greatest energy. The generator inside your motor is generating and dissipating POWER at a rate which is almost equal to that which is being supplied to it! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GET!!! Others far smarter than I would like to make myself out to be have been screaming this very same thing that I am suggesting now for years, you weren't/aren't listening to them either. I demonstrated the two ways that I view energy. Namely, as its being dissipated, or as its accumulating, in both cases in joules per second. I suggested that when the motors own generator action is inverted, the rate at which energy can be transferred and accumulated per second can equal the impressed and dissipated energy per second! I suggested that the transferred can exceed the applied under ideal circumstances. I went on to suggest that the recovery under this set of circumstances, where unity is established via the proper generating (transfer and condensing) mechanism, can be the minimum 30%. Now your recovery becomes the means through which you can exceed unity, assuming you haven't exceeded it already by amplifying the generating (rate at which energy is transferred and accumulated) mechanism.

When you run this as two separate and distinct devices, the benefits and problems are different than when it is ONE combined device. If and when someone comes forward with a working mo/gen device they are willing to disclose that puts out more usable power than the one I have sitting on my bench, then I will pay attention to them. Until then, they are all talk and theory as far as I am concerned.

In my opinion you aren't qualified to comment on systems where motoring and generating are united, but hey...neither am I. There is a difference between us however, a difference which gives my suggestions relating to the same a little more weight than your suggestions, specifically, I have such a system, and can and have demonstrated what I suggest. I am not the guy who is going to demonstrate how I go about accomplishing what I suggest with those who don't care about my effort. So Hell no, I am not willing to disclose, and I am positive if you were in the same boat, you wouldn't either. I am in no hurry to share what has taken me years to understand with folks who will beat each other with clubs trying to be the first through the door of the patent office with their gadgets inspired by my ideas.

I am not asking you to pay attention, you are doing what I want you to do already. For the record, I don't mind being all talk and theory as far as you are concerned, however, we both know that you know this is not the case, and as such, I am honored you think of me when trying to school others.


Regards