Claim Buster Topic

[Farmhand]

What's the matter ? Does no one believe it ? Very good, seems I did my job too well.

Anyway here is the video.

Very efficient Tesla Transformer.wmv - YouTube

More pink Floyd.
Money - Pink Floyd HD (Studio Version) - YouTube

[Farmhand]

Well well, what a strange turn of events. I never would have guessed it. A
setup that produces more output than input and no comment. Fine by
me. Makes me wonder why I would share anything else. I have doubts that I will.

It seems unless people take the time and make the effort to study and
understand the things they want to do, in their own way they are doomed to
copying the copiers and taking the results they are given. It's easy to take
people for a ride when they don't understand what they are looking at or trying
to do.

My transformer has a primary resistance of less than 0.2 ohms and secondary
resistance of about 0.4 ohms. It is very useful for a lot of different things, and
works on well known and well documented principals. Further testing shows
me an efficiency of up to 125% under some conditions and very close to and
over 100% under most conditions. Just because it is impossible to actually
prove something on video, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to see what
makes sense and what doesn't. Resistance equals losses, lower resistance
less losses and more available power. We should be using less resistance to
improve efficiency not more.

I understand that with pulsed DC systems the actual current is difficult to
determine, however I have tested this enough to know that I have a very
efficient and very useful transformer, I believe my measurements are
consistent and any error in input measurement should be cancelled by the
output measurement, several different meters show the same result. And the
formula is still holding true so far and it makes sense. It can explain what is
happening as in it can explain the power gain I see.

I understand why it is so efficient and useful though with all the different
terms used it is difficult to explain. And considering all the argument an
misunderstanding I encounter, I don't think I will try.

If anyone has any genuine questions they think I can help with I am happy to
help, but I have no need to defend my claim, and no reason to try to prove
anything so I won't waste my time.

By the way there is another Power resistor trick I thought of as well to show
an overly hot power resistor, it's called an oven, anyone can simply put
a trick resistor in an oven and make it very hot then install it in the circuit and
show how hot it is, almost any ruse can be achieved. If it can be shown to be
real it can be faked.

So I return to my uncorrupted learning experimentation.

Cheers

[munkeyflavamuffin]

@Farmhand this has been an excellent read and a masterclass on logical/analytical thinking Cheers

[Farmhand]

I should have mentioned more clearly, that in the last test's I used only two
batteries in series with the source battery charging the one in series with it, just
like the regular Bedini type charging setup. (regular two battery arragement)

I think that by showing with the other three battery setup that the charging
current does go through both series batteries when connected to the source
battery by only the negative and by seeing that when only two batteries are
used and the same charge current is observed, along with the fact the
voltage of both batteries (combined) was rising, with the charge battery
charging and the source battery almost stable (but of course it was daining
very slowly).

Considering those things and the power measurements, I think there is only
one conclusion to come to, and that is, that it is very efficient, the efficiency
changes so a number can't really be put on it. The formula for the gain seems
solid and also works for in negative for losses. So to see a gain you must first
have one.

Thanks for the comment Munkey.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

I was wondering if it is possible someone with a Bedini arrangement or similar
could test it with three batteries as in the above post (series negative joined
to single negative) and with two batteries like normal. Just to see.

Just an approxomite measurement wil do. No need to be too accurate, I didn't.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Hi all, this drawing below is the arrangement I used to confirm that the
recovery mechanism was causing current through both batteries, the current
measured going into the two series batteries in this configuration is the same
as when the recovery output is directed to the battery in series with the
source.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Therefore if the single battery is providing ie. 500 mA @ 12 v and the series
batteries are receiving 250 mA @ 24 v that would appear to be unity. As the
single battery would be giving 6 watts input and the series batteries would be
receiving 6 watts output.

When the recovery is directed to the battery in series with the source the
formula below seem to hold true. So it seems obvious what is needed for over
100% efficiency is more output power than input power.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'm claiming efficiency's up to 130 % with charge batteries that are drained.
I was hoping someone with a Stingo, Bedini or other such device would test
this and post results. But it looks like I'll have to try it with my own SS Bedini Tripple.

Not sure what it'll show. I'll post later.

It would be nice, and might help others if somebody else could also test this.

Cheers

[Guest]

Farmhand,

Highly interesting turn of events going on here... I've not had a chance yet to go over any of it, although it looks you've been accomplishing some excellent results!

[Farmhand]

Hi Geo, I'm not getting too excited yet, as soon as I use the secondary the
efficiency drops to just over 100% or even under depending on what I'm doing.

But if this turns out to be a valid gain with all recovery charging setups then
my hat goes off to John Bedini, because it just doesn't get any simpler than this.

I have other idea's to make the use of the secondary more efficient as well,
but I want to gather as much experimental data on the recovery
effects as I can, the efficiency seems best when the recovery is directed to
double the source voltage as I've said before a few times.

I am using a charging circuit and two phases with my transformer, the
charging circuit has stored energy in the capacitors and charging coils as soon
as the source is connected and before the circuit is turned on, and is part of
the decoupling mechanism so I'm not sure yet if a regular Bedini arrangement
will charge through the two series batteries, but I will find out.

Cheers

[Guest]

This is a Summary from your video - [ Very Efficient Tesla Transformer ]

In order to determine the wattage through your charging resistor,
what voltage is used?

[Farmhand]

Hi Geo, I used the 25 odd volts x the 165 mA or so. I can't remember exactly.
I used the total of the two batteries in series x the current through them.

Though being pulsed DC I wouldn't count on the current readings being very
accurate. I won't argue too much if someone says my claim is busted because I
don't have many options for measuring current, the resistor method does
match my fairly accurate analogue current meter, I keep blowing all the fuses
in my good digital current meters

The little arrow on the bottom picture you linked is just to denote that it the
positive rail.

Nice presentation of the pics.

Oh and my tripple transistor solid state Bedini measures up to 150 %, it has
4 x 0.63mm twisted wires about 45 meters long each I think, and it's air cored,
efficiency is better at low power but still at 800 mA input it still measures over
100% and it does charge both batteries in the three battery setup as well
same current measurements. Interesting.

Cheers

[Guest]

Solid state Bedini coil? I've not ever seen one of these... is this
something that has documented plans or previous discussion?

I'm having a bit of confusion as to how your PWM is linked in to each
coil on the toroid. The Tesla Transformer, very interesting. Has this
been published in Patent form?

[Farmhand]

Please bear with me Geotron, I am tidying up a bit for the next round of
experiments and I'll take a photo or two and label the things you're asking about.

The solid state Bedini charger is just a regular simple solid state multi coil setup,
I tried it just to compare and for the charging it seems to be better, but it's not a transformer.

I'll make a couple of photo's to label soon.

Cheers

[kcarring]

Farmhand:

Don't get me wrong... I really like your contributions... and you have PERSONALLY taught me, through your work, a lot... and therefore I definitely respect you, a lot actually...

but, lately you have been on a bit of a truthbend for efficiency, I've seen it on a few accounts.

Which is good!

However, here's a question:

Have you ever seen anyone ever show efficiency calculations, power in vs. power out, that effectively prove, without a doubt, that their device is running OU? EVER?

Personally, I haven't... and if I did...

I'd still have plenty of resources at hand to find probable fault. For example, any small device displaying OU, measured correctly, could be manipulated to be receiving power wirelessly, through RF. My guess is that pyramid guy might be doing such a thing.

So in the end, you'll never see proof.

About the oly proof you'll see that's close to valid would be a battery, known incapable of producing a suitable current (i.e. a AA battery powering a circuit, outputing int he order of 15A), ultimately going OU to deliver certain heat/light.

Nearly anything can be faked, if that's the motive, so really... why get technical and concern oneself with the semantics of how well the faked measurements were conducted.

Personally I think nearly all of these devices floating around are in essence, duds. I've built dozens of circuits and I see nothing close to what I believe is overunity, most having been created by the highest respected members of this forum. I see no point scoffing them or knocking them though, just because I see no gain. If they can fool idiots and make a few bucks, maybe they've accomplished exactly what they were after, and thus successful! If they actually BELIEVE they are creating free energy, and obsessed with their design... hey whatever; to each their own.

What I have discovered is that, though... for example... I have absolutely no belief in the many, many "spike" based free energy circuits WHATSOEVER... and furthermore, I have been sat down, shown mathematically, on paper in front of me how an inductive spike can be calculated, energy in/energy out... and therefore I am further more totally convinced the whole lot of coil based battery chargers creating free energy is a complete and total crock of S#@!... despite all that...

I believe, now, after a year of experimenting...

It's a great way to desulphate!

So far be it for me to knock the guy who created the circuit!
I think it's amazing.
I have two RV batteries, from the dump, in my camper. They work excellent! I pleased as punch. Kudo's to the inventor, he really does have something. And I have learned something, from nearly everything I tinkered with. And I am completely in respect to all the free energy experimenters that have contributed and see no need for people to completely quantify their output, their claims... their methods of calculations... basically... this isn't science, it's art. And if one comes along that REALLY works, we'll know... it'll be obvious. Deadly obvious, without even a multimeter hooked up. Much like the day I BOUGHT my first free energy device; the solar panel - my all time favorite. I stand back and watch 1300 watts worth of panels output about 700 watts of energy into my battery bank. I don't need a multimeter: IT WORKS. Same goes with the wind turbines. In the end, when you got some, something real... it's obvious. If you have to sit down and calculate phase angles and time increments... chances are... even if it IS overunity, it is, by no means close to being overunity "enuff" for the marketplace; the world; the solution. Chances are you can go buy something at Walmart that already produces more free energy without going overunity, like a solar panel; for cheaper and it'll scale up, whereas the tiny gain you get from the small device won't.

Just my 2c

[mbrownn]

However, here's a question:

Have you ever seen anyone ever show efficiency calculations, power in vs. power out, that effectively prove, without a doubt, that their device is running OU? EVER?

Personally, I haven't... and if I did...

So in the end, you'll never see proof.

Nearly anything can be faked, if that's the motive, so really... why get technical and concern oneself with the semantics of how well the faked measurements were conducted.

I've built dozens of circuits and I see nothing close to what I believe is overunity,

What I have discovered is that, though... for example... I have absolutely no belief in the many, many "spike" based free energy circuits WHATSOEVER... and furthermore, I have been sat down, shown mathematically, on paper in front of me how an inductive spike can be calculated, energy in/energy out... and therefore I am further more totally convinced the whole lot of coil based battery chargers creating free energy is a complete and total crock of S#@!... despite all that...

I believe, now, after a year of experimenting...

It's a great way to desulphate!

So far be it for me to knock the guy who created the circuit!
I think it's amazing.

... even if it IS overunity, it is, by no means close to being overunity "enuff" for the marketplace; the world; the solution. Chances are you can go buy something at Walmart that already produces more free energy without going overunity, like a solar panel; for cheaper and it'll scale up, whereas the tiny gain you get from the small device won't.

Just my 2c

I respect you for coming out on this forum and credit where credit is due you have praised aspects of some devices but I would like to add something.

I consider that you would be an Ideal person to check out overunity claims as you have understanding and healthy skepticism.

Did you ever build the Imhotep/Bedini fan? I ask because I am sure that my maths did not add up with this device.

I found that the charge rate was well over 90% and the mechanical power well over 10%. Ok there is a margin of error and it is difficult to measure the mechanical torque of such a small device but my figures gave me a 97% charge rate with a margin of error of 6%, so it could be anywhere between 91 to 103% and mechanical power of 33% with a margin of error of 30% so it could have been anywhere from 20 to 40%. Worse case that's 111%

I did not include mechanical, heat and other losses.

Assuming that the recovery from the coils is around 90% I cannot explain how there is enough power to overcome cogging and friction in the motor never mind do work as well.

Ok it does not produce a lot I agree as it is a concept device but can you explain the math problem?

Im not having a dig at you, maybe I missed something.

[Farmhand]

Hi Geo, I re-labeled the drawing of your's for now. The Tesla transformer is patent number 382 282




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'll post some info about this setup in the Tesla rotating field Motor/Generator
thread later.

The coil polarity switch is the silver switch on the charging circuit board.

Cheers