-
Here is 20 years of Lindeman's life's work. One of many. Ungodly amounts of power is produced and mechanical energy. See the 1000 watt array of old fashion bulbs? This is a real attraction motor not that toy magnet wheel.
-
Here is Doug's BiTT input 73 watts output 98 watts. All done at 60hz. Now build one that can be run at 3000hz and you can get COP 3-5
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Turion View PostThere are specific ways to test for OU and the toy magnet wheel setup is not it. The attraction motor has been highjacked as a toyOriginally posted by Turion View Post
Easy big dog, just rattling your cage. The answer is no. I am the one who posted this video 5 years ago. The Lindemann motor is much more not to be compared to these toy magnet wheels.
You need to read the motor secret's book you bought all over again. Why use a standard motor to run generator coils when motor coils can be used as lenz free generator coils at the same time at any rpm? Are you going to acknowledge the difference after many many corrective posts?
You have said a great many things about experiments you have done but without a demo that is heresy only. I was just randomly picking a number like 40% which I assume is about right for the toy magnet wheel.
I also have shown Doug Konzen' s video of Muller's way of winding a coil where 1 row is formed then the wire is pulled back and the winding continues. Series wound has been around before you, Muller did it. All these things have gone unnoticed. Granted there is a lot of data to digest here but making people think a toy magnet wheel is special is hard to tolerate. I asked John Bedini on his open threads what to expect in the way of COP and said 110% COP if you did everything right with circuits and so on. The list is long.
When you don't want to face up you ignore. It is because you don't know something and are afraid to say you don't know. You are way to busy I heard it all.
The 3batterygen was the same thing, I built it spending 100's of dollars and I asked you questions about why the batteries were never charged, you ignored me for years. I still have the setup you told everyone to build. You abandoned my efforts and from then on I knew you could not be depended upon.
I no longer look at your suggestions the same way. Your toy motor could be done correctly.
The lenz free coils you suggested did work. But that is all I have that works. We are not sharing we are listening to Turion and that is it. Either that or you lose control.
It is a joke to lead people on with these toy motors and you do not want any other idea's.
All north magnets is not a true attraction motor that Lindemann has had since 1983.
Show me OU
big dog. You really need to do it right this time, ya know show a battery climbing up in charge and how to do it.
I ask questions and make statements that you completely over look. I will address the group only from this point on and stop bothering you.
I will get my own answers. No you can't build circuits, you had to hire that done.Last edited by BroMikey; 03-08-2022, 01:42 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Did you even read that post before attributing those words to me and then jumping on me with both feet? Go read it again. You continue NOT to pay attention. EVERYTHING except the first sentence of that post is something I copied and pasted from another forum. In the first sentence, I SAY that it is all from another forum. NONE of it is from me, yet you show it as a quote from me. I NEVER spoke those words. Get it together.
Can simple magnets nullify Lenz? You tell me.
Last edited by Turion; 03-07-2022, 11:51 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Thanks Dave for your guidance. For those who want more than a 110% eff motor like John Bedini had shown look at Lindemann's motor secret's geometry.
See minute 2:12 in the video and this picture of his 8.6 COP geometry changes. The motor coil has a collapsing field and must not be wasted so a circuit is used to charge another battery all from the same single coil. I repeat the same coil is used to motor and generate via a circuit.
8.6 COP is considerably higher. Your motors are DC motors 80% eff not 860% including the all north toy motor. Your generator does not collect motor collapse, it wins the war using special generator coils that have no self induction. Plus the neutralization magnet scheme.
If all of these were put into a single box your COP would go out of the roof. What Lindemann has shown is the motor only that takes only 1/8 as much power for the same mechanical force.
Your motors are conventional not OU as you agree. This one is way OU all by it's lonesome without those awesome generator coils
COP 8.6
Last edited by BroMikey; 03-07-2022, 07:18 PM.Leave a comment:
-
With the simple setup I built, people at OU.com are adding more coils to see if they can get the same effect. I KNOW they CAN because it is what I do with my generator. And the simple method to test for OU with that setup is measure what is going to the motor coil and compare it to what comes out of the generator coils. Simple is better. No need to measure breaking torque and all that complicated crap.Leave a comment:
-
okay good man. I think people assume you would not waste your time unless OU was at least possible, my mistake. Here is what Lindemann has for one possible good geometry. Of course it uses the same circuit (sg circuit) to run the coil to motor as it does to collect the collapse.Originally posted by Turion View Post
People often get confused that a big name inventor might suggest a circuit because it can go OU so I wanted you to put that idea to bed. Thx, the naysayers can feel me.
Leave a comment:
-
For the SECOND time, I NEVER said that setup was OU. NEVER. Please quit putting words in my mouth. I built it to show that electromagnetic fields can be CHANGED and MANIPULATED with permanent magnets just as I have done on my generator. That’s ALL.Leave a comment:
-
I don't have any proof that it is better efficiency than a record player motor using low power inputs. The only way to prove a statement like that is to first establish the efficiency of the cobbled up mess before you add more magnets.
For example let's say (safe to say) that your motor before magnets is running at 20% efficiency. Next you get a 40% eff. with the magnets. Now I ask you, who is right? Is it OU as you suggest or is it running at 40%?
There is no difference in our statements, both just picked out of a hat. I see all these motors on youtube saying they might have OU but always end with a big fat question mark and you never hear from them again.
I need more proof than that. Peter L gave us all the answer, he showed a simple way to measure braking torque that with tight gaps, hall effects and circuit coil recovery flyback OU was proven.
Peter L gave us the right way to show if the motor was or was not OU. I have no proof and you saying it is does not prove OU. Why are you making this claim? You say the magnets added make it better. Better than what? Better than 40%?
I am sure you must have a feeling about why it is OU, so please explain. Why hasn't anyone built a Peter L version? Building is fun if that is all you want.
This is the correct answer and we all need to grow up and follow this. I know what you have shown is the first step but it is time to move foreword. A big name inventor should know that
Last edited by BroMikey; 03-07-2022, 01:10 AM.Leave a comment:
-
It is definitely NOT “0” amp draw. This is just to show that when you start manipulating magnetic fields using permanent magnets in ADDITION to electromagnets you can get better results with less energy input. At what point do you get more out than you put in, or how close can you come.
it is a DEMO for some folks at Overunity.com., which is why it has that title. I am not claiming OU with this setup.
At least one person over there has replicated, has added an additional generator to see if the effect will apply to it also ( it does) and is now building a larger unit. It’s amazing what you learn when you build things.Last edited by Turion; 03-06-2022, 10:24 PM.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: