Basic Free Energy Device

[Wistiti]

Hours
Days
Weeks
Months (I've seen it)

It depends on how well you have it balanced and whether or not you mess with it.

Thanks Dave for the reply.
Am happy to see you are still with us!

I have to stop it cause i dont want to let it run without an eye on it... I have to say i have some hard time to adjust it before i disconect it...
I think some cristal break down on the 3rd position batt plate causing some adjustement on the load side... In other therms it is not a stable system...
I would really like to find a way to made it stable and run some fixe load on it... More test have to be done.

Sorry to have been late to jump on it... but now i see its potential!
Thank you again for sharing it!!!

[Turion]

Battery info

This is just an observation and my theory in support of it. Perhaps others with more experience charging and discharging batteries will disagree and we can figure out what is what.

In the three battery system there are two batteries in series, then the load, then a reversed battery. So the load runs between the positives of two batteries. Both battery 1 and 2 are discharging while 3 is charging. It is my belief that you can move battery 1 to the battery 2 position but that battery 2 should rest before moving to the battery 3 position to be charged. I say this because while it has been discharging in the 1 and 2 positions, it's ions are moving in a specific direction, and want to keep moving in that direction. If moved to the battery 3 position it takes additional charge power to slow those ions down, stop them, and reverse their direction. Better to let the battery rest where the ion movement comes to a halt on its own before putting it in a charge position and reversing the direction of ion flow. Just my thoughts and I may be all wet. Hopefully someone out there has some facts rather than theory. Of course that would mean FIVE batteries for the three battery system. With two always resting.
Dave

[Mario]

Hi Dave,

from what I have seen a battery that has just been discharged takes longer to recharge. If you let it sit for a few hours the charging process seems to take less time/energy.

I'm not sure we should rest a battery that has just been charged though. In the same manner but opposite the ions continue to move in the "charge" direction, so why not take advantage of that and put it to work immediately while they try to stay in charge mode for a while... JB somewhere said to use it as fast as you can before the "surplus" depletes. Someone else said to rest a charged battery to let it fully absorb the charge. Not sure about that one yet….

Mario

[John_K]

Let them rest I say...

In my experience I've found it's best to let the battery voltage stabilise before charging OR discharging it.

Going back to the old days of the Bedini Monopole 3 group on Yahoo, when I did my initial load testing, I always had better results if I let the batteries rest.

Fast forward to the 3 battery system (or 4 battery Tesla Switch) and I also found the same to be true. I remember the first tests I did and found that the series batteries regained their original voltage after resting whilst the charge battery always rested a little bit higher than it's original voltage - if the load was right AND if the batteries were all left to rest.

John K.

[jettis]

Better to let the battery rest where the ion movement comes to a halt on its own before putting it in a charge position and reversing the direction of ion flow.

You will find that a partially charged battery freshly removed from the charger will still charge while resting... Which is a type of free lunch, to a degree.

It should also be noted that when we charge and discharge the batteries or keep cycling them within a two day period they will charge to a fully charged state faster, for less energy input, while having more amp hour output vs a normally charged battery.

With a desulfated battery that is in top condition one might see up to 110% capacity or slightly more all at higher than normal discharge voltages that you would not see with conventional charging.


These things I have all personally seen and demonstrated to myself and others... and I know certain people over the years have also said the same thing, including JB, PL, etc.

Dave Wing

[Peter Lindemann]

Let them rest, if you can....

Hey Guys,

I totally agree with the idea that letting a battery rest after being charged is the best way to maximize whatever amount of "free charging effect" Dave Wing is referring to. The effects are absolutely real and vary in quantity depending on the charging method. I discussed a number of factors on this topic in Bedini SG: The Complete Intermediate Handbook. I have seen batteries continue to charge for up to 30 minutes after coming off an experimental switched-reluctance generator. Since recognizing and taking advantage of ANY FREE ENERGY from the environment is what this inquiry is about, resting the battery after a charge cycle is definitely worth doing because the battery can and does rise to a charge level that is higher than it was immediately after it was removed from the charger. Placing a load immediately on a freshly charged battery dissipates this benefit.

I also agree with the idea of resting a battery immediately after it comes off a discharge cycle. But here, it is more about minimizing a LOSS rather than effecting a GAIN. To the best of my knowledge, a battery does not continue to discharge after it is removed from a load. Immediately upon disconnection, the voltage begins to rise and will continue to rise on an asymptotic curve for 5 or 10 minutes. Even after that, a battery's voltage may need an hour or longer to fully stabilize at its final "resting voltage." When placed immediately on a charger, the energy expended from the charging process only forces the voltage to rise through a range it would have done by itself if it had been given enough time. Again, this is dissipating energy in the system needlessly.

Obviously, when we are trying to re-cycle our electricity in an endless loop, eliminating all losses and taking advantage of all gains are BOTH important. It is, however, my personal opinion that optimizing GAIN methods are the more important of the two.

Matt and Dave have shown that by carefully adjusting the Boost Module, the gain in their system can be fine tuned for long-term, stable operations. Likewise, the gains in my machine, using more conventional battery charging, discharging, and rotating methods, can also be fine tuned by lowering impedances and using diodes with the appropriate switching speeds.

The point is, there are sufficient gains available in these systems to overcome whatever losses are encountered. When my battery rotator was being designed, we built in one place for the batteries to rest. So that is what I am currently working with and I am resting the batteries after the charge cycle. Not resting the batteries after the discharge cycle is the result. In spite of that, my fine tuning process (still on-going) is very close to achieving long-term, stable operations, even without the diode on the common negative line.

My last test (yesterday) ran the machine for 8.25 hours at an average current draw of 1.8 amps. So, 14.85 amp-hours were "used" by the motor, running the rotor at between 860 and 910 rpm. The average voltage drop on each of 8 batteries was .07 volts and the average voltage on each battery, after resting all night, is 12.70 volts. I don't know if the voltage drops in the batteries were due to an actual "dissipation" of charge or just an indicator of the impedance of the batteries dropping in response to being cycled. Either way, the system appears to be very close to running "at par." Only long test runs will determine the actual state of operations.

Peter

[Turion]

Coils

A while back I tried to start a thread on basic coils and gave up when people wanted to jump all over me concerning my thoughts on speeding up under load.

However, Bob French and I have been working on this speeding up under load stuff for a while. And I wanted to throw out a few things.

Matt built a two coil device with high impedance coils and a small rotor that DID speed up under load. I replicated it.

My machine has a 12 inch rotor and the coils are not high impedance, and it still speeds up under load at 2777 rpm (to be exact) or 2800 rpm.

Bob has a coil he believes is speeding up under load, which is a much smaller coil (and a much smaller rotor) but he has to run the rotor at around 5,000 rpm to see the speed up under load.

It has been my belief for a while now that ANY coil will speed up under load if the rotor is turned at the proper rpm. In essence, each coil has its own "frequency". I believe we could develop a formula that would tell us for a particular coil with a specific impedance, the rotor must turn so many rpm if the rotor is of a specific size, and that the rpm would increase the smaller the rotor size.

I think some serious investigation of this needs to be done, and I am in the process of running tests right now, but it would be awesome if someone else wanted to build a coil testing machine and test to see if they could make coils speed up under load by simply changing the rpm of the rotor.

Dave

[barbosi]

it would be awesome if someone else wanted to build a coil testing machine and test to see if they could make coils speed up under load by simply changing the rpm of the rotor.

Dave

Why ask for help from somebody to try and verify your hypothesis? From your signature I see you hold dear Yoda's saying: "Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Do it!

While erfinder showed to all of you that speeding under the load is not big deal and he had several methods to achieve it, he made it also clear that there was more to be learned.

But nobody was curious about that last statement. gotoluc split the hair to the nausea, and collective attention flew into his replications. Later it all got forgotten and nothing of any use resulted thereafter.

Some things are mysteries though I have seen this pattern before

Luc

Ask gotoluc to do your work, as I'm sure despite having so much on his plate, he'll be happy to get all attention he could get with 20+ videos.

Or you could ask erfinder... Oh I forgot that all your collective attitude resulted in banning erfinder, because he dared to do things in his unique way, not as you learned.

Now y'all, do contemplate the situation you find yourselves in…


Time y'all get back and charge those batteries!
Or ask to ban me too.

[BroMikey]

While erfinder showed to all of you that speeding under the load is not big deal and he had several methods to achieve it, he made it also clear that there was more to be learned.

If you can't support the real conversation, why clutter up another man's
suggestion? The answer is "rejection" I am sorry but "rejection" by
others is not enough excuse to random attack or target. Your insecurity
is showing.

No one here will put up with bragging either so those are a few thoughts
for you today. Stop interrupting the continuity and the condescending.
I realize you are a big man, I have no problem with that.

I just hate racial prejudice. You want it boy?

This forum is only for those who show kindness to one another or you
will be asked to start your own thread. Don't tick me son.

Now if you would like to rephrase, then I will speak to you like a human
and not a warrior. Your little world equals a zero to me. Just keep it up.

Now for those who want the answers, here is one. Thane Heins is showing
us one possible answer of why some of the first selfrunners by John
Bedini needed a 3000 ft generator coil.

It's very very very very very clear. Make it complicated if you must.
And no I was not here when Thane was so I don't know what the
infighting amounts to, I don't care either.

This is what I do know. If we are to make a low lenz generator section
that becomes a selfrunner, then we must honor those who lead the
way. Peter L. and John B. are great leaders.

Thane Heins makes specific notations or references to John Bedini in
his work with bi-filar and tri-filar wound coils that operate as generator
coils while not dragging down the rotor.

Sound familiar? Well it should. The SSG using a 100 foot 8 filar spool
can be equipped with a generator coil that takes advantage of the
mechanical energy that would normally be wasted.

The way in which a generator coil can be done varies. I used the phrase
"Low Drag" earlier" because this is the word set we are most accustom
to when talking about the SSG, but if you ask me that is the same thing
as saying that the generator coil offers a delayed LENZ due to it's ungodly
length of 3000 ft.

The coil needs to be 3000ft only because the SSG turned at 600 RPM's if I
remember correctly. What Thane is doing is the same thing at higher RPM's
in my opinion. I think the 3000ft generator coil length was stumbled upon
like so many other experiments do.

Like Dave said before, we need to get our RPM's up, our tolerances down.
That is easier said than done. The formula for determining the right length
of wire based on awg is shown on THANE'S channel.

The fishing is over, the catch is already on the hook, just pull.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huQFingZ2V8[/VIDEO]

[Turion]

Winner!

barbosi,
You are the winner of the pissing contest! That is all that is important to some of you, proving that you are the one who has the answers. My goal has always been to take people to a level beyond the use of rotors and magnets for the generation of power, but you keep right on spinning those wheels.


I will continue my work on devices that don't use them anymore. There are a few here who have shown that they DO THE WORK, and are ready for that, and I will contact them, but I'm sure not sharing it here.

Dave

[citfta]

I am currently testing one of Dave's latest ideas and it is looking very promising. Too bad the cry babies on this forum have shut down the beneficial exchange of good ideas. Actually working and testing ideas and sharing results is the only way to accomplish something. But the cry babies just keep saying "Gimme, gimme" while doing nothing. So they get nothing.

Carroll

[Ufopolitics]

No More Magnets...No More Rotors?!

[...] My goal has always been to take people to a level beyond the use of rotors and magnets for the generation of power...

I will continue my work on devices that don't use them anymore. [...]

Dave

Turion,

I am sorry to write here, but, by all means I am not at all trying to participate in any "pissing contest"...However, I got very surprised as curious when I read your latest post (the essential statement quoted above)

It means you are not using Matt's Two Coils Motor-Generator anymore in your three batteries system?!




Regards


Ufopolitics

[Peter Lindemann]

Please Excuse Me....

Hey UFO,

If I might venture an answer to your question, this is what I'd say. Dave has said a number of times that these systems are capable of (and actually do) run pulse style motors and recover 100% of the electricity. Of course, we know these kinds of motors are essentially inductive in nature and therefore the idea eventually arises that these systems might be capable of running any type of inductive device on a series of pulses. Experiments bear this out, and therefore a "solid-state" version of a power supply that produces excess electricity should seem no more unusual than a power supply that can produce mechanical energy for free.

I didn't believe it either, until I saw my big motor running at full speed while recovering 95% of the run energy on the very first test! I have now replaced the bad batteries in the initial group with new ones and installed some faster diodes in critical locations in the circuit, and now the motor is running faster and the batteries are maintaining even better.

My solid-state experiments are on the drawing board and I hope to get to them as soon as I finish the experiments on the motor-generator that is currently taking up most of the floor space in my little shop right now.

Peter

[marathonman]

QUOTE; "beyond the use of rotors and magnets for the generation of power"

that is easy my friend, Clemente Figuera, he did it in 1908 and took 70 years until William Hopper proved it. right under our noses for 108 years and it works. use transistors on part G and you have a total stationary system. there is no need for ANY generating system to rotate, the big secret kept by bankers. imagine that !

sorry for interrupting.

[Ufopolitics]

Displacement over Time...

Hey UFO,

If I might venture an answer to your question, this is what I'd say. Dave has said a number of times that these systems are capable of (and actually do) run pulse style motors and recover 100% of the electricity. Of course, we know these kinds of motors are essentially inductive in nature and therefore the idea eventually arises that these systems might be capable of running any type of inductive device on a series of pulses. Experiments bear this out, and therefore a "solid-state" version of a power supply that produces excess electricity should seem no more unusual than a power supply that can produce mechanical energy for free.

I didn't believe it either, until I saw my big motor running at full speed while recovering 95% of the run energy on the very first test! I have now replaced the bad batteries in the initial group with new ones and installed some faster diodes in critical locations in the circuit, and now the motor is running faster and the batteries are maintaining even better.

My solid-state experiments are on the drawing board and I hope to get to them as soon as I finish the experiments on the motor-generator that is currently taking up most of the floor space in my little shop right now.

Peter

Thanks for your answer Peter,

So, that means the 3BGS is still dependent on a Motor or Generator or a combination thereof in order to be able to regenerate so far?

Have anyone tried a Pure Resistive Load of the same wattage capabilities as the Inductive Load (understand Rotors, Magnets, Coils or even a Solid State Device which does Displacement over time) then determine if the results are the same?

If this System delivers exactly the same Results under a Pure Resistive Load, then it could be concluded there is no need for any Displacement Over Time of any Magnetic or Electric Fields, which definitively would be awesome.

A Pure Resistive Load is understood as a Resistor Heater (Not an Induction Heater of course) or an Incandescent Bulb of the same Wattage as said Motor.



Regards



Ufopolitics