Claim Buster Topic

[Farmhand]

Not quite what I'm getting at Slider but relevant points.

As can be easily imagined, if I was using a motor driven generator to supply the
input to the setup in the video (rather than just the battery), when I loaded
the output the motor would have sped up. Just like his motor does when he loads the output.

That's a given because just like the battery the generator would have "seen"
a reduced load. And it would have sped up just like the battery voltage rose
when I loaded the setup.

Reduced input under load effects.wmv - YouTube

Reduced input current under added load effects 33 - YouTube

I've put in a lot of time and effort to try to help people to see this. If i save a
couple of people from wasting time and money it's worth it. But I have zero to
gain from doing it but to help people.

In this video below thane shows a regular transformer and his BiTT, he says he loads
the both of them with a light bulb, but the light bulb does not light up. What a
joke. I say do it with a 20 watt load and see what happens. He is doing this
with milli amps, probably because that is the limit of the effect. And look at
the size of the BiTT compared to the normal transformer. And what is the
input ? And how is he energising the transformers ? And what is the total
efficiency ? I'd like to see him plug the BiTT directly into the wall and do the
same thing. What frequency is he using on them and voltage and how much is
he restricting the current in ?

When he measures the current on a primary by using a 10 ohm resister that is
adding 10 ohms to the primary resistance, not good. Also I have seen him
measure the output by using a 1 or 2 K resister, how many loads have that
resistance ?
BiTT vs CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER Video.mov - YouTube

Cheers

[Farmhand]

More to the point I would like to see his BiTT and a regular transformer
actually light up a 25 watt bulb with over 20 watts, either plugged into the
wall or powered from an inverter run from a 12 volt battery, and compare
them then.

My guess is the regular transformer will light the bulb properly but the BiTT won't.

To be fair the regular transformer should be chosen to be suitable for the
input voltage and load ie. for a 25 watt 12 volt bulb a transformer with the
primary wound for grid supply voltage 110v or 220v and the secondary a
15 volt winding and rated for 5 amps.

However if the BiTT is better with a different load like a 110 volt or 220 volt
bulb then a 1:1 transformer could be used but I don't see the use to that.

But still if they are both powered from the inverter and the regular transformer
is suited to the job a real comparison could be made. The regular transformer
should at least also be a toroidal transformer.

Because ultimately if it cannot light a bulb what good is it ?

He makes a lot of wild speculation in that last video I linked.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

The effect of Thanes motor generator kind of reminds me of a Kromrey converter
but not as good. Are they OU ? I don't think so, because the input is still more
than the output. But it speeds up under load too. If the difference between the
loaded and unloaded power was measured it would show much better efficiency
than Thanes setup I think. And it can really light up the bulb too. But the
difference between loaded and unloaded is not the real efficiency of a setup.
The real efficiency is the useful output divided by the input provided by us.

Kromrey Converter - speeding up under load - YouTube

Cheers

[mbrownn]

I think this is the heart of the matter, I think most of us would agree that a system must be in unity when all inputs loads and losses are counted, COP=1. The problem is electron flow cannot explain it all if indeed that is what electricity is. Radiant theory does explain where one type of second input comes from but again radiant and current theory cannot explain it all. Once we bring magnetism into the equation I think it becomes problematic.

I have pulsed coils and collected the inductive kickback and had 90+% recovery. I have pulsed the same coils making them do work, ie attract or repel a magnet or iron and had similar results when the magnetic circuit is open. OK I admit what I can measure isn't going to be that accurate but it does seam as the magnetism isn't produced by consuming current but is only as a result of current flow. Magnetism is a force and no work is done until a movement occurs but when there is movement I could detect no extra electrical power loss. Hmmm. Im not claiming anything here as this is just an observation and it may be that I could not detect it and that is all. In closed magnetic circuits, such as a normal motor, I could detect a loss. What is going on here?

If anyone knows somewhere where I can get information on this I would be grateful.

If we put 5 amps of current flow into a motor, 5 amps come out of the other side so no loss of current. There is voltage drop due to ohms law and heat generated associated with it. I have not found any information that gives a direct consumption of electrical power converted into magnetism when you take into account the amount of energy that is collected with inductive kickback. The maths don't add up. Do you know any different?

I am beginning to think that the statement that electrical power is converted into mechanical power in a motor is incorrect. Is mechanical power in a motor only related to current flow and not A conversion of energy from electrical to mechanical?

This begs the question when electricity runs through a wire it creates a magnetic field, so when we coil that wire is the magnetic field only concentrated in a smaller volume or is it increased in magnitude? If it is increased in magnitude we have a gain in potential.

Please forgive me for my lack of knowledge here.

If we use PWM on a DC servo motor under the right conditions we can have double the current flow through a motor of what we put in and double the output power http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/bha...les/esc_sw.gif . this suggests again that it is only current flow that is related to mechanical power and not the consumption of electrical power.

I would like your thoughts on this

[Farmhand]

Try these mbrownn, Magluvin kindly posted these over at Overunity,com. I think they are very interesting.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sorry links didn't work, I'll fix it.

You can download the PDF's from the attachment in the first post from Magluvin.
Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

This actually concurs with some theory I posted on another forum a while ago
I'll get the drawings I made. Crazy theory, but crazy can be real.

Cheers

Edit mbrownn you'll have to download the PDF's from the link above, the snippet is in the classfluxan document.

..

[Farmhand]

A transformer by itself cannot be OU it can only be part of an OU system, a
transformer cannot run itself without a source of power. A transformer sitting
on a table with a load connected cannot be made to power the load with no
input.

If a temporary input is supplied like a battery then disconnected, and the
transformer still outputs power then it is just using a different source not all
that unlike the battery itself, it would be no more of a case for over unity
than a solar panel is a case for over unity.

Most very efficient devices can appear to be OU, and even some very
inefficient ones if presented in a certain way.

Bottom line is all energy has a source.
It is impossible to create energy from nothing because there isn't anywhere
where nothing is. In my opinion nothing is a meaningless word.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Anyone who claims more output than input or OU should be able to answer a few
questions.

Like

What is the total input to the system from the source of stored energy ?

What is the total output ?

Can you prove it ?

And when will you prove it ?

Now considering how difficult it is to dismantle and inspect a device in a video,
I think it is very very difficult to actually prove anything in a video.

If those questions are not answered then I probably would want to know why not.

If someone is claiming OU and actually has it what possible reason could they
have for not answering a question truthfully.

Cheers

[mbrownn]

Try these mbrownn, Magluvin kindly posted these over at Overunity,com. I think they are very interesting.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sorry links didn't work, I'll fix it.

You can download the PDF's from the attachment in the first post from Magluvin.
Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

This actually concurs with some theory I posted on another forum a while ago
I'll get the drawings I made. Crazy theory, but crazy can be real.

Cheers

Edit mbrownn you'll have to download the PDF's from the link above, the snippet is in the classfluxan document.

..

The more I look at this the more I believe that creating a magnet with current consumes no energy and only requires the movement of current. This is something I do not understand and cannot find an explanation for. I will read the pdfs a few times more to try and digest it. my brain is trying to reboot

Could it be that magnetism is a polarization of the aether in some way?

I am trying to visualize the aether, I see it as subatomic "particles" which have charge, magnetic and gravitational poles or not depending upon their type, almost gaseous in nature. Deep stuff

[Farmhand]

The more I look at this the more I believe that creating a magnet with current consumes no energy and only requires the movement of current. This is something I do not understand and cannot find an explanation for. I will read the pdfs a few times more to try and digest it. my brain is trying to reboot

Could it be that magnetism is a polarization of the aether in some way?

I am trying to visualize the aether, I see it as subatomic "particles" which have charge, magnetic and gravitational poles or not depending upon their type, almost gaseous in nature. Deep stuff

I'm glad you took the time to read it mbrownn it does seem to say that the magnetic field manifests from outside the core and the wire, so in free air.

Could it be that magnetism is a polarization of the aether in some way?

Yes, I've thought that for a while. I was waiting for you to read it. I was
shocked to see it in a document. I did post some drawings a while ago but
they were a bit rough and I thought it was far fetched, I am reluctant to post
the drawing, but here it is. I'm not saying it's true but it's the theory I work
by. In a transformer using AC it's different I think.

http://v4i2ow.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pUIooy82nZEeg6UavtK-Rq7F-kWrG3d3eiJ4xETL1BibS6rW8btEX6RFi9MkiL8bbiBYcLMa12l70_jL7GPXgrU3AwtvOVsJJ/Trns%20Th%20001.JPG?psid=1

This is the original drawing I made and posted a while ago and is still linked on
the other site. Of course it was just my own personal theory at the time and
when I shared it no one seemed interested.

I don't think of the Aether as particles, I see it as flux kind of like magnetism but not..

Cheers
P.S. I think it could be nature's way of giving back the work it took to make
the current flow, to maintain unity as nature must.

..

[Farmhand]

OK, I see Thane has clarified some of the points I raised.

The post is here. Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

I wouldn't normally quote from other forums, but since it's a big claim I will.

Firstly I'll admit that definition of a generator is correct for an electrical generator.

So firstly he states the input to a generator is

THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT WHICH = THE DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE x DRIVE SHAFT SPEED.

Then he states that

IN THE ReGenX SCENARIO THE MECHANICAL OUTPUT IS GREATER AFTER LOADING THAN BEFORE LOADING SO THAT ALONE MAKES THE SYSTEM OVER 100% EFFICIENT (MECHANICAL OUTPUT IS GREATER THAN MECHANICAL INPUT BECAUSE TORQUE AND SPEED ARE BOTH HIGHER AFTER LOADING)

Ok fair enough where does that shaft power come from ?

Now the definition clearly states a generator is any device for converting
mechanical energy to electrical energy. So if the input is the driveshaft, then
the only thing he is measuring the efficiency of is the rotor and the coils.
NOT THE SYSTEM. So therefore the efficiency in my opinion is a working
efficiency NOT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

Which is it the generator, or the whole System ?

If the generator is the whole system and Over unity it wouldn't need the
motor or the grid power just the shaft and the rotor and coils.

My suggestion is to make a de-coupler so that when speed up is achieved the
motor can be physically disconnected from the generator. Not hard to do.
That should prove it once and for all.

Bottom line is he is using 190 watts to light the two small bulbs for a slight
increase in speed and decrease in input power.

If the generator was attached to a vehicle drive train that 200 or so watts
would be provided by the vehicle.

If that's his idea of Over Unity he can have it. He's welcome to it.

There is still the issue of if the rotor is speeding up the motor or the motor is
seeing less load. Install the de-coupler and see what happens.

To my way of thinking decoupling the motor from the generator would be the
natural thing to do next if I thought the generator was OU. Apparently the
rotor is supposed to be providing power to the shaft so decoupling the shaft
should see the rotor speed up even more.

generator [ˈdʒɛnəˌreɪtə]n
1. (Physics / General Physics) Physics
a. any device for converting mechanical energy into electrical energy by electromagnetic induction,

I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN...THE INPUT TO AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR IS:
THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT WHICH = THE DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE x DRIVE SHAFT SPEED.

INPUT POWER = TORQUE x SPEED

THE INPUT POWER IS THEREFORE THE DRIVE SHAFT POWER PRIOR TO LOADING DIVIDED BY THE OUTPUT (WHICH IS THE ELECTRICAL LOADED POWER OUTPUT).

EFFICIENCY = ELECTRICAL OUTPUT/MECHANICAL INPUT x 100

IN A CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM THE MECHANICAL INPUT ALWAYS HAS TO BE INCREASED TO MAINTAIN THE LOAD (MORE TORQUE ADDED) AND THIS ADDED TORQUE x THE SPEED IS THE INPUT ENERGY VALUE.

IN THE ReGenX SCENARIO THE MECHANICAL OUTPUT IS GREATER AFTER LOADING THAN BEFORE LOADING SO THAT ALONE MAKES THE SYSTEM OVER 100% EFFICIENT (MECHANICAL OUTPUT IS GREATER THAN MECHANICAL INPUT BECAUSE TORQUE AND SPEED ARE BOTH HIGHER AFTER LOADING)

EFFICIENCY = MECHANICAL OUTPUT (GENERATOR LOADED) / MECHANICAL INPUT (GENERATOR UNLOADED) x 100

IF OUTPUT ELECTRICITY IS ALSO PRODUCED THE EFFICIENCY IS THEN:

EFFICIENCY = MECHANICAL OUTPUT (GENERATOR LOADED) + ELECTRICAL OUTPUT / MECHANICAL INPUT (GENERATOR UNLOADED) x 100

SO EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ACCELERATION WHILE LOADING THEIR GENERATOR HAS SUCCEEDED IN PRODUCING AN OVERUNITY DEVICE!

CONGRATULATIONS! I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EFFORTS BECAUSE FEW PEOPLE WILL. AND FEWER STILL WILL UNDERSTAND.

KIND REGARDS
Thane

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Here is a link to a page outlining generator efficiency.

Electrical Engineering Tutorials: Generator Efficiency



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Obviously this method of calculating generator efficiency is different to Thanes method, I know which one makes sense.

This one below.

3. Watts available in load circuit/mechanical power supplied.

So what was the mechanical power supplied ?
And how many watts are available in the load circuit.

Mechanical power supplied means all the power it takes to turn the shaft.

We take the watts available in the load circuit then divide that by the mechanical power supplied to get the overall or real efficiency.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Another way to determine the mechanical power supplied is to run the motor
at speed up speed, then remove the rotor and coils, then run the motor without
any adjustment, measure the input to the motor, then re-install the rotor and
coils, run it again and measure the input power to the motor again, then the
difference between them is the power supplied to the generator from the
shaft.

Then take the load power and divide that by the power supplied to the
generator, to get the efficiency.

That is the efficiency of the generator section.

Then the efficiency of the whole system is the load power divided by the total
input power.

But even that is not a complete picture because the power company takes an
efficiency hit to provide the wall power and the system wont work without it.

For those who buy their power that is a reasonable and fair efficiency calculation.

Cheers

Oh yeah, also measuring the shaft RPM at speed up and again when the rotor
and coils are removed (without adjustment) would tell a story also.

..

[nueview]

i do see the point you are making and agree that it would be impossible to create energy or to be able to get more out than is put in.

i was working with magnetic induction heaters and it became the same problem with them to get to an agreed efficiency. the heater motor was a high efficiency leeson motor driving a steel cylinder in a multi poled field the unit used the motor to preheat the incoming air before being heated by to cylinder the output heating came in at 4.32 BTU / watt but the motor heat when subtracted from the total output left 3.41 btu/watt so it was right at 100% efficient.
the patent office said you could not claim the waiste heat from the motor toward any efficiency rating as it was waiste heat.
also any claims of better than 100% would be rejected as well even if a more efficient motor was to be used and in the years since i have found a way to get the motor to give better torque and use less input power and believe with the right configuration i could double this.

one of the more outragous things i heard was how much input was there for the permanent magnets and how long would they last. well they are now 21 years old and still doing fine.

now here goes my question if i have a 5kw generator and i run 10 permanent magnet motors in resonant configuration were most of the power for the drive is gotten through recycling power within the circuit of the motor has there been energy created? I would agree with you that no energy was created! was there a more efficient use of the energy applied ? i would say yes. so is it the control of the energy you are after or is it the actual input? i am a bit confused is it really the terminology? if so i would agree there is no energy created.
Martin

[Farmhand]

Yeah Thane's original claim energy can be created is the main point. But so is
claiming OU and 140% efficient.

Now this is all fine as long as everyone else can do it too.

So Going back to transformers

If I have like in my setup when i connect my transformer to the AC input the
input power to the AC generator transformer is about 7.56 watts, no load on
the output transformer, then when I apply the .45 watt load the input to the
AC generator transformer drops to 3.78 watts.

So from unloaded 7.56 watts to loaded 3.78 watts is a drop of 3.78 watts so
input is halved. The load is 0.45 watts.

Does that mean my whole setup is 200% efficient ? Don't think so.

Does that mean my output transformer is over 100 % efficient ?

Going by Thanes way of working it out for his BiTT (correction, generator I meant) I would have a whole pile of OU.

I'll review his video's to get the way he calculates his efficiency for his
transformer. Then I'll see if I can apply that to mine. To get a comparison.

How do I work out the efficiency when the input to the transformer drops by half ?

I'll see what happens, if somebody else would like to work that out as well
that might be helpful. The supply or AC generator transformer uses less than
100 Ma when the output transformer is not connected. It's all in the video.

I know it's not really OU but I want to work it out for reasons of demonstration.

Here is the video.
Reduced input under load effects.wmv - YouTube

Cheers

EDIT: I hastily made a wrong assumption here about the output power calculation, and I apologize for that, My mistake entirely.

Of course Thanes output power calculation for the BiTT is correct.

..

[nueview]

well to my line of thinking it all goes to the COP more or less it is all a form of leveraging the amount of input for the amount of output.
so the method to get a performance is important.

in my shop i have a rotary phase inverter it takes in 220 volt single phase at 20 amps and gives me 220 volt 3phase at 15 amps per phase is this not a cop device some have called it OU but i would not though it was invented by Tesla it is seldom talked about even on these posts.

in all the cases mentioned there is no OU all the field reactions are accounted for as is all the energy and how it is derived or aquired though they can have a better COP than is normally gotten.

in your case i would think there is some mutual reaction such that the load is increasing the resistance in the primary lowering input power this is not uncommon with resonant chokes.
Martin

yup them math shortcuts get you every time. been caught by a few in my life as well.