Basic Free Energy Device

[bobfrench@fastmail.fm]

Hello,

I am aware of Matt's warning against running a motor between the Negatives and I follow his advise. The way I'm looking at this is that we always use a wire to connect between batteries. The Primary in a transformed is just a wire...no switching added, no reversing of polarities, nada.

I'm wondering what effect the Secondary might have, though. Does it reduce the flow through the Primary? Does the magnetic field slow the voltage? I'm pretty ignorant about transformers, but I thought that it might give us another way to get power from the system, hopefully without disrupting the overall advantages inherent in the 3BGS.

My first transformer was a small spool of 26AWG (about 400') with 4' of 15AWG wrapped around it. I had 39.9V DC output from its bridge rectifier (and about 0 amps) as the system ran. I placed that across the two batteries of the Primary. It may or may not have been a benefit. If so, it wasn't much, but then we don't need much to push us over the top. It didn't.

Still working on it.

Bob

[Wistiti]

Im still thinking it is a good idea... And in the last Matt reply he say "I don't know what will happen by adding a coil on that side.
".... Mabe we have to test it and risking to scrap some batt...

Thank for sharingyour works!

[Matthew Jones]

I doubt you see to many gains from doing it. Any impedance on the ground side is going to be reflected on the positive side.
For that transformer to actually deliver workable power your going to need a clear cut ON/OFF. The motor is providing a small ripple but that does not help produce current as BOB has stated. 1- 26 turn ratio. If the current were there would see near 12v * 26 whatever that is. Now the coil is wound wrong, the primaries should be on the core and that has bit to with it. It would even be better if it were a toroid or some kinda E-core but that would also be frequency dependent.

My personal feeling is to leave the ground side alone, enhance the positive side and its performance and get this thing as functional as it can be.

Matt

[voltan]

hi matt. could an off the shelf motor, driven by a pwm speed controller, do as good a job, given that it's pulsed. i got a mabuchi 550s out of a car jump pack compressor. i have run it on the joule thief pulsing circuit below. i guess it gives 45-55% duty cycle. i have ordered a 6-24 v, 10 amp pwm speed controller from china, said to run at 21 khz. hopefully it won't absorb spikes.
*i have since received it and there are no spikes to collect.also the mabuchi doesn't go so well with the pwm.it screeches a bit and has not much torque on low duty cycle.however the radiator fan motor goes well with the pwm. no cogging so starts easy and got good torque at part duty cycle.
also anyone scratching their head as to how to mount a rotor on a motor, rc hobbyists use these prop adapters to securely grab on to small output shafts on motors. 3.17mm, 1/8th " in this case.
cheers .

[bobfrench@fastmail.fm]

I suspect Matt is right about not messing with the Negative side. I think his pulse motor is going to be the trick, if not one then maybe two in series. I'm waiting on parts.

I really want to find something other than solid-state. I haven't had anything worth reporting although all my tests have had decent runs, it's still all going down. I haven't found anything that I feel deserves a test run longer than 4-6 hrs. so far.

Good luck,

Bob

[Matthew Jones]

I guess it could but I am not following why this has become important, what is it that your expecting?

Bob showed it, Dragon showed it,WanttoMake showed it and I showed it, and there is perfectly good path to explore that can net excess work for minimal amount of electrical consumption. Why not try to look at whats been working?

So I am just at loss what direction people want to go. I don't care which you wanna go I am more willing to try to help but here is the delima, you put this coil on the ground side, you use a motor controller on the positive side to control the pulsing. Now what? You get some work out of the ground side, your water in your battery turns black and your batteries start to loose capacity. Or you don't do work and you stall the impedance of the whole system. Whats the point?

Just tell me what you wanna do and I'll try to help if its sounds reasonable, but just to ask if a component is going to do something, well just hook the thing up and see..simple.

Matt

[Wistiti]

I suspect Matt is right about not messing with the Negative side. I think his pulse motor is going to be the trick, if not one then maybe two in series. I'm waiting on parts.

I really want to find something other than solid-state. I haven't had anything worth reporting although all my tests have had decent runs, it's still all going down. I haven't found anything that I feel deserves a test run longer than 4-6 hrs. so far.

Good luck,

Bob

Hi Bob.
Just curious; why you avoid going solid-state???

[Turion]

Solid state has more parts that can go "down". The more simple a device is, the less there is to go wrong with it, and the easier it is to repair or replace parts. We would rather do simple whenever possible.

[Wistiti]

Solid state has more parts that can go "down". The more simple a device is, the less there is to go wrong with it, and the easier it is to repair or replace parts. We would rather do simple whenever possible.

[dragon]

This is where I ended up with the single battery and cap in place of the series batteries in the quest to measure all the currents flowing through the system...

The picture shows 1.18 amps flowing through the inverter and .64 amps into the boost circuit. It appears as if there are gains being made, but unfortunately there is not. The bottom watt meter reads only the energy coming from the battery referenced between the pos/neg, as well, it monitors amperage from the neg side and does not show the 1.18 amps flowing into the boost converter.

The drawing shows how the currents are flowing through the boost circuit. Since the negative connections are shared between the high and low potentials the currents can be drawn from both high and low side through the boost converter. So even thought the meters are showing a gain a part of what is going on is hidden. In reality the boost converter is drawing a little over 2 amps total but shows us only 1.82 amps visually.

I was thinking that if you could achieve an 80% return on the total energy used that this would be acceptable. Still loosing 20% but recycling enough to sustain longer run times. The 20% could be easily made up through other means.

When ever you have a hi to low potential your going to have losses - the unfortunate facts - this is where more efficient output circuits come in to offset the frailties of nature. The highest efficiency of this system comes in when you can maintain the least amount of potential difference and still drive a load.... as an example you can see in the picture I have the potential difference set at 10.8 which is slightly above the inverters drop out point.

24volts at 1 amp to 12 volts = 50% efficiency
12 volts at 1 amp to 12 volts = 100% transfer ( which couldn't happen without some potential difference leaving us somewhere below the 100% mark). Running a joule thief between 2 - 12 volt batteries would gain efficiency's in the high 90's with a .5 to 1 volt difference.

The system shown in the picture is running at around 54% but since I can't close the gap any further because of the inverter that is as high as this one can reach. If I created a circuit that could drive the bulb using a 3 volt difference then we could reach the 80% mark.

A gain in the system would require us to go from Lo to Hi which would mean our load would take the current from the lo side and boost voltage to the hi side while maintaining the same current flow. 6volt at 1 amp to 12 volt = 200% ... find that solution and your going places.

The best way I can see to ultra long run times is to close the potential difference gap between the banks and raise the amperage flow between them combined with super efficient circuits driving the loads. For instance running a boost circuit with a 3 volt potential difference to drive a 12 volt load. 15v at 10 amps to 12 volts = 80% return while driving a 30 watt load or charging a 3rd bank through a load to swap around and maintain the low potential difference.

[Matthew Jones]

I think there are even better options to explore..

Solutions - 80V, 98% Efficient, 4-Switch Synchronous Buck-Boost Controller IC with 4 Regulation Loops

Off the shelf product is always going to be low in efficiency.

Matt

[dragon]

That chip would definitely open up the options for control, the only difference between this and the MPPT is the output control - both utilize the power available to it's maximum possible efficiency.

I was simply pointing out the frailties of the basic battery to battery efficiency's while analyzing the circuit. 24 volts at 1 amp into 12 volts is still 24 watts into a 12 watt return. Boosting the 12v into the 24v still requires 24 watts to maintain the same output current level on the high side. Lowering the potential difference raises the conversion efficiency.

The efficiency of the boost converter is irrelevant to some degree in this case as it's doing its job taking 24 watts from the low side and putting 24 watts back into the high side. Doing this at close to 100% is wanted but the battery to battery conversion is the main factor in the success of extending the run time or the need for external input.

Are you planning to use a boost from low to high and drive a load while utilizing a buck converter from high to low? Even if both conversions are 98% efficient in shuttling energy back and forth with out any load involved your still loosing 4% doing nothing. Add the load in place and your loosing 4% + the load.

I'm simply trying to generate an honest discussion that could lead to solutions so that others along with myself can understand what you believe you are seeing, not to create havoc or angry replies simply an honest discussion to what I may be missing in my own research. As I told Dave, I will do my damdest to prove you right - simply point me in a direction beyond what I've just pointed out....

[Matthew Jones]

I'm not angry about your input. Your fine. All I think we'll every find is a system that requires a small input to do more work than your inputing. Even if its only half, but I think we can do better.

With a combination of balancing the system, and rotating the batteries I think we can do that pretty easy, and least define a system that can be built that will work within a margin set by the batteries.

My system that I showed in the video has been running for almost 2 weeks now and has pretty much stayed the same. I believe it has drop a couple of tenths of a volt overall. But the battery size has something to do with that.
The load is still 20 watts.

I have ordered some more converters cause I am down to 1. Burned up 2 messing around.

I don't really want to use a buck converter, its just more ground time and throws power away. The only reason to use a boost converter from the lower half to the top half is keep the potential wide enough to run the inverter. Personally I would just like to use a boost prior to the inverter because you loose nothing but entropy. Switching goes to the lower set.
But that requires a boost converter that runs at a lower voltage so I got some that can go as low as 8 volt input.
Then my idea is to get the power coming off the inverter to go back into the system while doing some work on the way.

I hope to find the time.

Matt

[dragon]

Excellent reply Matt, I can accept that my expectations were higher than they should have been but it did lead to other ideas that could possibly inspire solutions along the way.

[Matthew Jones]

Well I'll tell ya I wanna test that cap setup you showed with a little different config, against a straight load on a equal set of batteries.

So you got one battery, a diode coming off going into a cap (12v Cap), that has boost converter on it set at 24v, going up to another cap (24v Cap) and the load between the 2 caps.
The caps are better equipped to handle the charge discharge frequency. The battery would just supplement the loss. This would allow us to see clearly the amount of power consumed by the light bulb.
If the test was side by side with straight setup of a bulb on the battery TIME measurement alone would tell the efficiency.

Then that same test could be altered to look at voltages ranging from 2v to 48v.

If you go through the datasheet on that LT-8705 chip actually gets more efficient the more current you push through it. The voltage spread does not matter. Now I know that is the architecture of circuit but I have looked at a lot of different boost configurations and this same thing shows up every now and then at all different power levels. So I am not really convinced that they (The component people) really have a firm grasp of why it happens or they would make sure all of the components were that way. Why not have the highest efficiency at full load all the time. Just a thought.

Just take it one step at time and see what happens.

Matt