Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[bistander]

Renewable energy production

Jan 5, 2018 · Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the ...

From: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news...irst-time-ever

And individuals can buy commercial off the shelf (COTS) wind and solar, associated battery and power conditioning systems, and go off grid right now. ROI varies depending on location but for a substantial portion of single family dwellings in the USA, it is a net winner.

I have a friend in TX who has a modest solar PV array and generates enough to more than cover charging his Nissan Leaf EV. I think he has over 70,000 miles on it. No farting machinery there. I'm nearing 50k miles on my battery EV. No gas but I do charge from the grid. The geography here doesn't favor solar and my modest homestead is not well suited for wind machines. However within 15 miles there are 11 large wind turbines of the 1 to 3 MW size. I see this renewable energy production moving ahead faster than I thought possible a few years ago. I have even seen some in the industry predicting Moore's Law for PV.

bi

[bistander]

Hydroelectric

... Hydro are just "entertainment" ...

Hydroelectric is about 20% of the world's electric power generation. That is entertaining.

Ref: Facts About Hydropower

[boguslaw]

How about such experiment:
take 3 identical capacitors rated at 50V or more
connect 2 of them in series
charge the last one to 24 volts
connect this one to those two in series through the known resistive load of stable resistance so this one will be charging the empty two connected in series while powering the load
measure the heat or voltage drop and current change over resistor and use digital scope to compute the power dissipated
disconnect all capacitors and connect each on to the same load resistors
measure power dissipated as above
now charge the single capacitor to 24V and connect to the same load resistor and compute the power dissipated

[wantomake]

Doing and talking

I'm only posting my opinion here. Everyone of course can post opinions and thoughts here since this is called a "forum".

I don't post scientific or engineering terms since that's not my area of expertise. If I have built or building a machine of the topic, then that doesn't make me an expert. But gives me voice to share or help others that ask for help. Videos or posted pictures of the subject matter means one has "hands on" experience. Then other forum members will listen or want your advice.

If you are wanting "proof" then sounds/means you intend to not ever replicate the subject matter. Just my opinion. Opinions are like arm pits. Everyone has two and they both stink. Wanting proof of concept is the readers own curiosity or interest in a presented subject. When in a book store you see a book that seems interesting, do you call or write to the book author and ask if the story is worth reading? No you buy and read the book because the authors name is on the book and they wrote it.

Trust it comes down to trust. If the presenter shows proof of build and says interesting results come out of said build, then trust is formed. From just having a Free Energy interest you contemplate how to build proof of concept. That builds trust.

Yes there are frauds. Yes there are liars. Attention starved individuals. This my area of experience when dealing with humans. I'm trained and ordained church planter. 35 years dealing with humans and our ways.

Being a "backyard hobbyist", I learned to build smaller versions for proof of concept for my own personal belief. That backfires badly on me because smaller means less output. Some machines there are exceptions. But at least I did indeed try.

This is not directed at anyone here. If you want to be a part of a "build" then do that all the way. If not then don't ask for proof. To me if you build it, test it, then discuss it with scientific terms, that's what is NEEDED. I may not understand but trust you hands on experience/build. I never take advise from "child experts" who has never raised children.

Same principle.

wantomake

[bistander]

Reply to Turion

I admit it. We are liars. It is all fake. There was a wind up spring that made the motor turn. Hidden wires. You got what you wanted. Now go away.

But ol' bi has shown he is all mouth and no backbone. Hiding behind his screen name because when the truth comes out he will be shown up as a total fool. Oh it IS about you my man. You and your claims that this isn't for real, yet you won't reveal who you are. What are you afraid of if we are such frauds?

Hi all and to Turion,

I bring this reply over to this thread because it is obvious that the OP (Turion) of the other thread (3 battery generating system, 3bgs) does not appreciate my contribution to his thread. He simply cannot tolerate my questions or requests for proof/evidence supporting his claims. Instead of responding to the subject matter of my posts, he writes about irrelevant things mostly related to me personally.

What does it matter who I am? Deal with the content of the post, not with the author. What difference is there if I post "the sum of the voltages around a closed loop must equal zero" or if Peter Lindemann or JB or Eric Dollard posted it? Or if I am a Nobel physicist or some chump in Russia. Is the statement valid? Is it true? Look it up. Is it an accepted theory or law? Try it yourself. Out of a 1000 experiments, how many times has it been valid? It is the content of the message that I want you to respond to, not your opinion of me.

I would love to be shown a total fool by you proving your generator puts out 2000 watts of real power while using only 300 watts of input power. That is an incredible claim. I don't believe you are purposely fraudulent, but rather mistaken by what you observe or mislead by others in believing falsehoods. But then again, how can you look at two numbers and tell me zero is larger than 16.84?

I don't want to see your thread end. I want to be a part of it. That's why I assembled your single battery/boost converter/motor generator system and tested it and posted all the data (without comment as to its effectiveness). I thought I'd get some discussion as it looked like Matt started to replicate it. But he stopped way early and got very ugly with me for no apparent reason that I can see. You guys can't stick to the facts. You can't deal with the truth so you get personal and mean.

You remind me of the MM pair. Marathonman and magnetman. Each had their own working free energy machine, Figuera generator and pm motor, but for their own special reasons could not share all the details on their respective machines. Each could only release small tidbits with promises of more to come and ultimate success for those who would blindly follow their precise instructions. Sound familiar. "We can't show you, you just have to build it our way to see".

Where are the MMs now? How much wasted time and money? Think that time and money could have been better spent improving an energy system which actually had a chance of working?

While on a roll.... Notice Ufopolitics isn't posting much lately. He was active on both MM threads. (FYI, I never posted on the magnet motor). Wonder if Ufo has gotten discouraged, or just sick of me.

So anyway Turion, my mouth and backbone are irrelevant. Just deal with the content of my post. You might learn.

And yes, PLEASE, prove me the fool by delivering on your promised free energy machine.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

While on a roll.... Notice Ufopolitics isn't posting much lately. He was active on both MM threads. (FYI, I never posted on the magnet motor). Wonder if Ufo has gotten discouraged, or just sick of me...

bi

Hi Bistander,

None of the two above, I could say "personal reasons".

I can tell you am much closer to the truth than before...and if you call it "fantasy magnetism" before...then start preparing a name above fantasy...

What really bothers me about your behavior is not exactly your skepticism, but the fact that it gets you blind, so that even presenting all empirical data right in front of your eyes...you still deny it...an example?...the CRT SCANLINE ROTATION, which gives us all different (opposite) patterns for North and South poles.

Then you "entertain" the audience by changing the "view"...where obviously there is no ROTATION...remember?

So certainly I believe it won't matter if anyone will ever show you the "proof"...I know you will always see the glass "half empty" BUT NEVER "half full"...get it?


Anyways...none above or related would make me get discouraged to the point to stop searching for FE...not even with one hundred bistanders.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Rotation?

...
What really bothers me about your behavior is not exactly your skepticism, but the fact that it gets you blind, so that even presenting all empirical data right in front of your eyes...you still deny it...an example?...the CRT SCANLINE ROTATION, which gives us all different (opposite) patterns for North and South poles.

Then you "entertain" the audience by changing the "view"...where obviously there is no ROTATION...remember?
...

Glad to see you still kickin'. That's the problem. You are sure you see rotation because you bring rotation to the table; that is believing there is rotation in the magnetic field itself. Whereas I don't believe there is inherent rotation in the magnetic field and see deflection or linear displacement on the scope trace. Our differences are not difficult to understand. But neither way would be proof of anything except that the magnet causes movement in trace, and we both knew that.

I don't consider a picture which is open to interpretation as empirical proof, like so many lines on a ferrocell.

Good day,

bi

[bistander]

Evidence

bi,

You saw the video of Tin Man’s test of Matt’s motor and Luc’s test of Matt’s motor, so you have the evidence right in front of you. But because you do not have an open mind, you allow your preconceptions to rationalize away something you CLEARLY do not understand.
...

Hi Turion,

That evidence from those videos clearly show a net drain of power from the source, be it a power supply or a battery, into the motor. There is no load on the motor shaft, so zero power out of the motor. How can the power out of the motor be higher than the power into the motor?

Don't like the power supply? Here's Tinman using a battery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RBuWQni0znU

He pretty much says the same as I did here:

The product of the negative current and the voltage above the power supply voltage is generated by the motor during that period. The machine is running as a generator for this short time converting mechanical energy in the rotating mass of the rotor into electrical energy directed back to what was the source. On the videos, that source was a power supply and was unable to handle returned power very well. If that source was a battery, it would charge a small amount with the returned power. But the net result is a drain from the source into the motor.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Let's look at what Turion posted

Did I EVER say it would put out more than comes in when directly connected to ONE battery?

Yes, that is what I've been talking about.

... And this is clear "proof" that the Matt modified motor does indeed have greater output than input.
...

...
I have said for a long time that Matt’s motor put out more than goes in, ...

Guys,

This is so very wrong. The power output from the motor is zero. There is no load on the shaft. By definition output power = zero.

On the video, we see some discrepancy between the meters and scope. But either way, 35.75W(rms) on the scope or 16.84W on the PS/Fluke, there is power going into the motor.

Power in. Zero power out. There is more power into than out of the motor.

True there is a short period where current reverses as indicated on the scope trace. So for that short time there is power from the motor to the PS. But it is a small fraction of the total power from the PS into the motor and is accounted for in the rms value indicated on the scope.

The peak of the current waveform is like 6 amps. This is well above the PS limit of 3A so the PS cuts back. This and the spikes occurring when the motor coil disconnects cause some odd behavior and meter readings.

Turion can preach all he wants, but he is misinterpreting data causing him to believe he has free energy.

I for one would like to carry on with the experiments. Maybe we can learn something.

Regards,

bi

And the rest of the context:

https://youtu.be/hYcghCtlG-4

Hope this link works.

Yes it does. And this is clear "proof" that the Matt modified motor does indeed have greater output than input.

And is there a conspiracy afoot to hide this video?
Why we wonder.....

wantomake
Thanks Dave

Actually, when Luc was contacted he was gracious enough to share the link so it could be published here. It had already been posted on the Basic Free Energy Device thread months back. He could have locked the YouTube video if he wanted to keep it hidden.

I have said for a long time that Matt’s motor put out more than goes in, which is why Matt designed molds to pour a ferrite core for the razor scooter motor. We believe that with ferrite cores it will be even MORE obvious. Just another project on my list of things to get done. I printed one of the molds but it has disappeared in the confusion of moving.

It is obvious that from the bold underlined comment and context (luc's video was only about the motor and did not have 3 batteries) that you spoke of Matt's modified motor by itself. You can wiggle all you want, but I made it clear that I was talking about the motor alone and not the 3 battery system. I try to stay clear of battery systems as there are just too many variables. Notice that I only chimed in and requested proof and evidence when you made over unity claims on motors and generators independent of the 3 battery system. Just like your motor generator claim of 2kW out using 300W input. No mention of batteries there, right?

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

The electric machines

ANY motor connected directly to a battery sends the input power to ground. The discussion has ALWAYS been about running the Matt motor on a potential based system rather than a stock motor because if the advantage it gives in THAT situation. That was my initial objection to YOUR replication that started this whole debate in the first place. Remember that? I never intended for anyone to run the Matt motor as a stand alone motor connected to a battery. NEVER. You can spend the rest of your life searching the forums and will NEVER find a single sentence where I talk about running that motor connected directly to a battery. And I NEVER stated that run that way it would deliver more out than put in. All my references to the Matt motor have ALWAYS been in the context of running it between the potentials. I have never run it any other way and never will. Those words NEVER came out of my mouth.

*

bi,
You saw the video of Tin Man’s test of Matt’s motor and Luc’s test of Matt’s motor, so you have the evidence right in front of you. ...

You were certainly willing to accept Luc's and tinman's tests using a single source as valid when you thought their data supported more power out than in. Only after it was demonstrated that input power was higher did you all of a sudden put the split potential requirements on your claims.
*

If YOU interpreted it that way and that is the basis for your disagreement with my statement about the Matt motor, then there has been a major misunderstanding. But then I really don’t give a crap. Time and time again I have spoken of the effect the motor has on the charge battery when runon this system, but you see what you want to see.

What do you think gotoluc and Tinman were doing? Testing the motor by itself because that is what you and Matt were claiming was putting out more than input. You're caught so now you change your story. Well it doesn't make any difference if the source is one battery or combination of three. The output is never going to exceed the input power.

And what about this?

... it is the GENERATOR that determines success or failure. ...to have a generator that outputs significantly MORE power than is needed to run it. ...

BINGO!!! That's what I want to see. The generator with higher output power than input power.

You were talking about a standalone generator.

Again, the system connected to the generator (motor, one battery, 3 batteries, load or whatever) isn't going make it deliver 2kW with less than 300 watts input.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Generator

Just want to point out that my generator puts out between 1800-2000 watts while running on a STOCK electric motor that requires 240 watts input. When I use the Matt modified motor my amp draw is higher, but because I run it on the 3 Battery system, I can recover better than 80% of the input energy. No farting smelly machine needed to run the generator. ...

This sure sounds like you're referring to the standalone generator.

[bistander]

Not arguing with Turion, but

Can anybody tell me where this BS statement originated or what logic would lead someone to believe such a thing?

ANY motor connected directly to a battery sends the input power to ground.

Thanks in advance,

bi

[dragon]

The term "ground" is being used to describe the negative terminal connection to the battery. A reference to ground is used to note any place on an automobile chassis which connects the negative terminal of the battery as an example. We could run a single wire from the battery positive any place that needed power then simply use the "ground" reference as its return to the neg of the battery.

[bistander]

Ground

The term "ground" is being used to describe the negative terminal connection to the battery. A reference to ground is used to note any place on an automobile chassis which connects the negative terminal of the battery as an example. We could run a single wire from the battery positive any place that needed power then simply use the "ground" reference as its return to the neg of the battery.

Thanks dragon, but I know the definition of ground. Actually it is arbitrary and can be defined as any particular node in a circuit. Knowing that, how does it help explain Turion's statement: "ANY motor connected directly to a battery sends the input power to ground."

????

bi

[dragon]

I simply interpret it to mean that it is neutralizing the battery charge as would any circuit connected to a battery. Assuming, "Input" being the positive connection, "ground" being the neg return.

I can understand the skepticism on claims being made but it seems a bit trivial to spend time this way. We've lived this long without that particular technology so if it works great, if it doesn't ... oh well... their success or failure doesn't really effect us, what we do ourselves does. I have plenty of projects that will keep me busy in the meantime.