Basic Free Energy Device

[Turion]

Update for Jim

Rewound motor
Three batteries
Boost modules
That gets you a setup that will basically run your motor for free if you build it correctly. You can certainly make up for any losses in the system by using the motor to turn a lens free generator.

As to the generator.....We have been discussing on other threads and here which patents to read in order to understand how to build coils that speed up under load. I’ve done it. I gave examples. I showed the patent. Once you have THAT you can build a generator with three or four coils. This will PROVE COP>3 or 4. To add more coils without the motor drawing so many amps it burns up, you have to eliminate the attraction of the magnets on the rotor to the iron core. The magnetic “drag” will not allow you to have very many coils. This is the last hurdle to overcome. With a “free wheeling” rotor and coils that speed up under load you can produce 1500-2000 watts for 50 watts or less.

I promised to show how to build a Basic Free Energy Device. Done that. I’ve shown how to build a VW bug. If you want a Royals Royce, you have to figure out how to do that on your own. But it can be done. My machine has 12 coils on it right now with iron cores and 2” Neo Magnets on the rotor. I can turn the rotor by hand. A year ago, trying to do the same thing, I had to put a 14” wrench on nuts at each end of the shaft, and it took everything I had to break the lock and turn the rotor 1/6 of its rotation to where the 6 magnets on the rotor once again locked onto the iron cores in the 12 coils. The motor would draw over 100 amps to do that same job. My analogue meter only goes to 100 amps, and it would peg. To run that machine after the lock was broken was somewhere between 30-40 amps. That was STILL an over unity machine because 80% of the input power was recovered, BUT I kept burning up motors since my motor is rated at about 27 amps.

So that’s where this sits. Build it and you will see it works. A VW still gets you from A to B.

[Gambeir]

Matt is correct. I do NOT know how to do the proper measurements. In fact, when I fist started posting about this stuff on the OU forum they ran me off because I didn’t know how to defend myself and they kept insisting I “prove” that this is for real. So I quit. I put it all on the shelf. I moved on, figuring I would have nothing to do with this crap EVER again. Then that damn Luther Goodman contacted me and told me he was seeing what I was seeing and the circus started up again. I tried different motors connected to all kinds of different loads. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. Then Matt introduced the pulse motor and the instances of it working became more frequent. But because I had been run off and because I let “experts” convince me I wasn’t seeing what I really WAS seeing, I needed something to prove this to myself. The motor runs st different speed when run between the positives than it does normally, and I looked for quite a while for a method of proving TO MYSELF that this is for real. So here is what I did. I charged up my best set of four batteries and put all four in parallel. Then I took one of my Matt modified motors and connected it to a water pump I got that had its own motor, which I removed and shaft connected to the Matt motor. This was an RV pump of some kind and also had a meter that could be reset. Then I pumped as much water from one five gallon bucket to another and back as the four batteries would pump until the pump no longer had enough power to pump anything. Then I recharged the batteries and did it a second time. I would have done it a third time but the results were pretty much the same and watching water pump is kinda like watching paint dry. Then I recharged the batteries, put two in series and two in parallel and ran the same test. I was able to pump over two and a half times as much water as the BEST result I got running straight off the batteries. Yes the pump ran slower and at the end when I was switching back and forth more often it ran really slow and it was extremely tedious, but work is work. There is no substitute. I didn’t run the test a second time. But from that moment on, NO ONE has any hope of EVER convincing me this does not work. And that test was done early on. We have made improvements since then. So you guys can rattle off all the expert opinions and reasons this can’t work all you want to. I have seen what I have seen. I owe you absolutely NOTHING and if you choose NOT to experiment with this, it is your loss. But don’t come whining around that I don’t share.

Ya know I have no idea what this thread is all about but what I will say is that the knowledge is corrupted: Very corrupted.

Electrical theory does not operate in a vacuum of text books, rather it operates in nature, which includes space and everything which comes with that territory.

A retired scientist, PhD physical organic chemistry, Northwestern University says this:

"In recent years, I have wondered about some of the models engendered by those fabled masters. What I have found is that some, beautiful as they may be, are inherently limited. They are limited because they fail to accommodate 3-D components that can not be rendered from 2-D. The masters have decreed that things are different at the atomic level even though this level formulates the substances of our real world! This is a stretch of faith that I no longer accept."
Keep It Simple Science
viXra.org e-Print archive, Joel M WIlliams

The current electronic structure of atoms is wrong.
THE CURRENT ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF ATOMS is WRONG

There are very good reasons to suspect that geometry of design in electrical circuits have direct effects proportional to energy production. If anyone thinks that they can just run wires wherever they please, then go about applying power to such pathways without having other potential consequences, then they are working in complete ignorance themselves. People like Walter Russell began to notice this by observing that the sun rotates on its' equator. You all should realize that what we think we know is just not correct, and it's been purposely corrupted and is being purposely re-educated to another generation with even greater amounts of complete fabrications for specific reasons.

I am in complete agreement with Turion on this issue. If you listen to the babbling idiocy of present astrophysics being taught as science, then you are going to have absolutely no idea how anything like the John St. Clair patents could possibly work: There will be no instinctive "ah-ha!" No enlightenment.

As someone modestly schooled in a real science of a different nature, so called police sciences, aka, criminal investigation, if someone comes to you and reports something unexplained then you don't start off by telling them how crazy they are. How would you like that huh? Call the cops and the first thing they do is tell you how you're not seeing what you just saw? How would that sit with you? No, you take the information, you go investigate the story, you look for the solution because there is an explanation. You may not live long enough to find that solution, but your work might live to provide pivotal information to another generation which will.

I'm gonna push this a little bit further: If in a criminal investigation someone were to begin to try to influence a witness, then that person would immediately become a suspect, because it's manifestly evident that they are attempting to obfuscate, confuse, or otherwise interfere with a solution. This person would then run the risk of being charged with a criminal act which might include such things as tampering, collusion, conspiracy, and a host of other serious offenses.

Police Science in investigation works off of destructive testing. It applies what is sometimes referred to as the Null Hypothesis Theorem. See, in order to prove a criminal case the investigator needs to re-construct a workable hypothesis (solution) to a crime. One which cannot be destroyed in the mind of a reasonable person.

You now have the same thing confronting you in your own back yard. You have a witness saying this is what they are experiencing. You have other witnesses saying they are also experiencing this same result. Is it reasonable to now use your so-called knowledge to deny what they claim are facts?
I don't think that's a reasonable response to multiple witness claims is what I'm driving at.

[gotoluc]

Hello Luc,

I don't know why more people are not speaking up. I have been very busy the last few days and just haven't had time to post a response to the latest comments. As I have explained before I have done many of the same tests as Dave and have gotten good results. By good results I mean that I have seen loads run much longer using the 3 battery generating system than they have run using the same batteries in parallel. This to me proves there is something about being able to recycle the energy that DOES work. I have also taken the time to rewind some motors according to Matt's design to make the motor a pulse type motor. I have seen when that motor is used it extends the run time even more just like Dave and Matt have said. I have also built and contributed to this forum a design for an automated battery cycling system that helps to keep all batteries rotated through the various positions of the 3BGS.

As Dave has said, how you set up the system makes all the difference in the world in whether you get good results or bad results. To get any results worth considering you MUST use large enough batteries. At a minimum for small test purposes I would not use anything smaller than the lawn and garden tractor type battery called U1 at Walmart. You can get them for sometimes $19.95 on sale and around here usually for $29.95. And you have to keep the load small for the smaller batteries.

And yes I do know you can't judge what is going on in a battery just by looking at the voltage. That is why Dave and I and I think also Matt have bought and use battery analyzers. These tell us the internal resistance and actual capacitance of the battery.

I do know at least one other person that I have actually visited that has done some amazing things using the 3BGS and large deep cycle batteries. He has gone completely off grid and until recently lived in the middle of Tennessee with only solar cells as his source of electricity.

The only claim that Dave has made that I have not had time to verify is his design of coils that speed up under load. My life has been very hectic for the last year and a half with the illness and passing of my father and then the time my brothers and I have had to spend cleaning out all his collection of stuff from over 70 years of living in the same place. When we get all that settled I will certainly be working on Dave's coil design and testing it.

One last thing I will say. Dave has said he has a way of overcoming the drag from the magnets attraction to the core of the coils. He has shared that with me and I can say for certain that it does work. Dave is holding on to that idea and that idea alone in hopes of getting a patent on it to try and recover some of the vast amount of money he has spent over the last several years of his research. As you well know wire and magnets and having rotors machined and all the other things involved in research cost a lot of money. I don't understand why anyone would begrudge Dave a chance to recover some of what he has spent when he has been so generous with all that he has shared. And I don't understand why more people have not taken the time and a little effort to try some of the things he has shared. I know of only 4 of us that have actually built and properly tested the 3BGS with a Matt designed pulse motor. I sincerely hope there are more that just haven't spoken up.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Thanks for your post Carroll,

All I'm saying (bottom line) is there's a lack of (if any) positive test result with data to support a conclusion of a run time gain.
One would think after 3 years of posts and at least 20 or so individual participating in replications there would be enough data to confirm something.
I just haven't seen it over the years or can't find the data for some reason.
That's all I'm pointing out.
Well documented test result of even one replication would be helpful.

Regards

Luc

[gotoluc]

Luc,
I know Bob French has tested it. It worked for him.

I know Luther Goodman has tested it. It worked for him.

I know Peter L. has tested it, and SHOWED it working at the conference in his LAST appearance.

I know RS Stafford has built it, tested it, showed it at the conference, and is currently selling a video of how to build a system running between the positives with a battery swapping setup like Carroll is talking about using parts from Home Depot or Lowes rather than electronic parts that have to be ordered like resistors and transistors.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-stafford.html

I only listed folks who have come out and said this works in public that I can think of off the top of my head. You can add Matt, Carroll and I to that list, and that's seven right there.

There are others who are not posting on this forum who I also know have tested it. It worked for them, and I have emails from them that I could look up. But I would want their permission before disclosing their names. Whether they come forth or not isn't the point. The point is, it works if you know what you are doing. When you post videos on YouTube saying there is NOTHING to be gained by this system, not only is that false, but it causes folks who might actually give this a try and who might then CONTRIBUTE to the shared knowledge, from ever taking a chance on this. And THAT is harmful to our efforts. Incorrectly labeling something as worthless (not your words, but that is the impression people are left with by your video) when it is NOT is far worse than simply not sharing something in the first place. It puts a big roadblock across a path that could and WILL lead people to exactly where they want to be if they follow it long enough and begin to understand what is happening in these systems.

I really DON'T care whether you try this or not, because I DO believe we each have our own path to follow. My ONLY request is that people do NOT publicly dismiss this when they OBVIOUSLY have not built the proper setup to give it half a chance of working for them.

People need to build it, see it work, understand it, and then think about how to apply the principles. Like I have said before, NOTHING that runs on low voltage should run on any method except BETWEEN THE POSITIVES, or that energy is just being wasted.

Dave

Sorry Dave but it doesn't help to give names of people that say it works.
Again, please provide well documented test data from just one replication and you will get may to build it.
I would think after all these years that shouldn't be an unreasonable request?

Regards

Luc

[Turion]

Adios

I have requested that Aaron lock this thread. Don't know how soon that will happen, but I have said all I have to say. It's been interesting.
Dave

[GlenWV]

Sorry Dave but it doesn't help to give names of people that say it works.
Again, please provide well documented test data from just one replication and you will get may to build it.
I would think after all these years that shouldn't be an unreasonable request?

Regards

Luc

It works.
Run times are longer using the 'split positive' methodology versus running at 'straight' voltage.

I'm running a 117 strand, 85lb coil Bedini SG, using a LM339 pwm circuit.
There are 28 transistors with 4 strands of wire on each.

Source is 24VDC @ 400AH
Charge battery is 12VDC @ 175 AH

Three 12VDC @ 175AH batteries are paralleled as the bottom side of the 'split positive' arrangement. (I have some 400AH batteries to put in here next, but they aren't in good shape. Perhaps, some magic will happen.)

Run time is measured in days, as the coil runs from 3 to 5 amps.

I had to shut the thing down with the charge battery at a bit over 14VDC because the 3 bottom batteries were breaking 15VDC.

When I tried Dave's 3BGS with poor quality batteries, it didn't work very well at all.
With good batteries, the setup works very well indeed.

Dave and Matt have given us all that we need to build some really nice, energy producing machines.

I have 3 'motor/flywheel/generator' machines being constructed now and will run them in the same manner on voltages ranging from 12VDC to 250VDC.

I want to try inverters of different voltages this way. 96VDC source/ 48VDC inverter/ 48VDC bottom batteries. Same can be done for 12VDC & 24VDC inverters.

'nuff said?

glenWV

[jim glinski]

Turion

A VW engine is fine with me .I have a history with them .on the low lens generator you found patents ? You posted them on the thread ? Did you post the configuration for the magnetic lock up dampener ? I got motor of the type that matt has .its smaller than I thought...:use it to start a RV out here in the boonees .never rewound a motor before some thing new .hope he left suffent info to replicate ? Not just a quickie .with half the info left to assumptions .some times people over estimate other peoples in site .because there up to there eye balls in the subject mater . well thanks for your help and commentary .you've done fine work . PS .any one ever consider putting up a graph on run times .? For us and to have something to point to when this stuff starts up again .? Good hunting !

[THEminoly]

I have requested that Aaron lock this thread. Don't know how soon that will happen, but I have said all I have to say. It's been interesting.
Dave

Why do I always come on the scene when you're ready to lock it :-)
I'm close to completing your experiment using a water pump to show work done. I posted a few years ago and did a vid or two showing how I did it and that your 3bgs does work. Never listen to the naynay's (naysayers), don't need them.
Love your mythbusters comparison
I do believe luck that he was commenting on Rick and not yours however he did cross the line into your zone in the end
Kind Regards - Patrick

[jettis]

It works.
Run times are longer using the 'split positive' methodology versus running at 'straight' voltage.

I'm running a 117 strand, 85lb coil Bedini SG, using a LM339 pwm circuit.
There are 28 transistors with 4 strands of wire on each.

Source is 24VDC @ 400AH
Charge battery is 12VDC @ 175 AH

Three 12VDC @ 175AH batteries are paralleled as the bottom side of the 'split positive' arrangement. (I have some 400AH batteries to put in here next, but they aren't in good shape. Perhaps, some magic will happen.)

How many known amp hours, via resistive load testing do you actually have on the powering side and how many resistive load tested amp hours do you have on the charging side?

Run time is measured in days, as the coil runs from 3 to 5 amps.

I had to shut the thing down with the charge battery at a bit over 14VDC because the 3 bottom batteries were breaking 15VDC.

When I tried Dave's 3BGS with poor quality batteries, it didn't work very well at all.
With good batteries, the setup works very well indeed. I'm talking good batteries here... What was your return in a percentage? Was it somewhere around 80 percent or higher? How much of a percentage does the SG coil alone give you when used in the classic primary and secondary SG mode?

Dave and Matt have given us all that we need to build some really nice, energy producing machines.

I have 3 'motor/flywheel/generator' machines being constructed now and will run them in the same manner on voltages ranging from 12VDC to 250VDC.

I want to try inverters of different voltages this way. 96VDC source/ 48VDC inverter/ 48VDC bottom batteries. Same can be done for 12VDC & 24VDC inverters.

'nuff said?

glenWV

Glen thank you for your answers...


Dave Wing

[boguslaw]

Just a small comment from me: I also believe it works, I have not tested it but I watched Richard Willis videos from the beginning and he used a stock of old batteries also. I think there is only needed a coil/transformer and two capacitors (and of course switching system) - it's funny how the simple methods occur in reality first always in much much complicated arrangement.

[wantomake]

Turion,
I too know and have seen with my own eyes and hands that this idea works. Thanks for the offering it freely to all here.

wantomake

[GlenWV]

Glen thank you for your answers...


Dave Wing

Greetings:

How many hours of resistive load on either side? I don't know, and don't care since all my loads should be pulsed loads of one sort or another.

Resistive loads will be run from inverters or generators.

Different banks of batteries will give different readings anyway, so I see no value in rating them.

I think the key for me is flexibility: Have several banks of batteries of a certain voltage, then series or parallel them for the function performed at that time.

So, in the next few days my batteries will be rewired so that some VDC banks will be working, some resting, and some charging.

This is what I have learned, what works for me, and is 'good enough' here on the hillside.

Also, cascading technologies so as to take small gains and compound them is part of the mix.

Good luck with your experiments,

glenWV

[gotoluc]

Why do I always come on the scene when you're ready to lock it :-)
I'm close to completing your experiment using a water pump to show work done. I posted a few years ago and did a vid or two showing how I did it and that your 3bgs does work. Never listen to the naynay's (naysayers), don't need them.
Love your mythbusters comparison
I do believe luck that he was commenting on Rick and not yours however he did cross the line into your zone in the end
Kind Regards - Patrick

Hi Patrick,

If this topic gets locked just start a new topic. I and surely others would be interested in seeing your results.

Regards

Luc

[Allen Burgess]

Bad batteries.

Quote from GlenWV:

"When I tried Dave's 3BGS with poor quality batteries, it didn't work very well at all. With good batteries, the setup works very well indeed".

Come on Man! People found a way to wear good batteries out. Whoopy do!

How long can we extend run time before we need to replace our batteries? Maybe it's cheaper to avoid the extra expense.

[jettis]

Turion, I have a couple of questions...


When you arrive at 80 percent recovery to the charge bank, using splitting the positive, are you using all of one through six below?

Again with the 80 percent figure... When you test your setup to get 80 percent recovery I take it you start with a fully charged battery that runs the boost converter and motor. But what state of charge is your large charge battery bank?

Are these larger charge battery banks resistively drained (discharged under load) to 10 volts, 12 volts or some other voltage before starting the charging (recovery) test run to achieve the 80 percent recovery?



1)Matt's pulse motor.

2)C-20 or lower discharge rates.

3)Battery resting after partial charge (removed completely out of the loop, not connected to anything, thus the battery continues to self charge via the ions still moving in the charge direction.)

4)Battery rotation.

5)Boost converter for higher voltage sent through charging bank.

6)Heavy flywheel.



Thank you,
Dave Wing