Basic Free Energy Device

[Turion]

Guys,
IF we can build coils that will accelerate under load, and I have four examples of coils that will, so am trying to figure out the commonality that allows this to happen...

I have no trouble making a generating device that has no slowdown because of magnetic attraction of the permanent magnets to the metal in the iron core as the rotor passes and tries to pull the magnet away from the core. As with many things, once you understand what you have, you can figure it out.

There are ways to build both motors and generators to ensure that the forces that act against you are neutralized or actually ASSIST you.

We're working on prototypes that do that.

I have not shared everything we know on this thread or on this forum. We are constantly building prototypes and testing, trying to move this thing forward. Quite OFTEN I share where we WERE rather than where we ARE simply because it might spark something with somebody, and where we ARE is usually in the middle of trying things that blow up expensive parts. A while back I let ALL the smoke out of a board that cost me a couple hundred dollars. That is an experience I don't want to SHARE with ANYBODY.

When we have something that works, and when we have gone BEYOND the point where we know it is safe and are taking it to the next level, like with the boost circuit, I have no problem sharing where we WERE. The surface of the potential of that basic circuit and how it can be applied to the running of motors and generators has barely been scratched. In fact, if you shined a light on that surface, you would see no marks AT ALL.

Think about this for a moment. You have a 30 coil machine, like some of the ones that JB sold. You have set it up so that there is NO MAGNETIC ATTRACTION of the permanent magnets to the cores of any of the iron core coils. (Or you could use air core, but might not get as much output) You can spin that baby with your pinky finger.

You have two motor coils that are 180 degrees out from each other. How MANY sets of motor coils do you think you will need with a machine that turns that easily? Let's say you need three sets. So six coils as motor coils turn 24 generator coils. Remember how you could cascade the motors in the latest circuit diagram? Do you think there is a big difference between cascading MOTORS and cascading three groups of two MOTOR COILS on THIS machine?????? So you PAY to power two coils as motor coils, but ENERGIZE 6 coils, and still collect back better than 80% of what you used to energize the first TWO coils in your charge battery. Since you have NO magnetic attraction you need far FEWER amps to kick the rotor right on by.

Oh, and the generating coils enable the thing to speed up under load, so you get higher rpm's and more output from the power you ARE using. As I said, this is not where we ARE, but where we WERE. I built a little two coil unit to PROVE the elimination of magnetic attraction, which it did. And Matt has been building a prototype to share when it is all done. Before we even FINISHED building the prototype, Matt figured something else out that takes us to another level with this stuff.

I posted the boost circuit back in JUNE and I can count on ONE HAND the number of folks who have come forward saying they tried it and what they saw. Why post stuff here if nobody is going to work on it besides us? We can see who is participating by building and contributing. Believe me, Santa is making a list and checking it twice. LOL.

Dave

[Dfortune]

I did a few of them

Hello all

I made a few of your circuits Turion and was please with them.

But I dont have 12v motors only 2 old 24v motors from battery lawn mowers, never the less yesterday I hook up 3 AGM 22Ah batteries in series and a "step down converter" (I know) to limit the voltage to 15v to charge 2 parrallel 12v batteries and it worked pretty good.

Motor ran at 24v 1.65amps for 3 hres 4085rpms lost 0.5v on the 3 serial batteries.
The two paralell charged up to 14.40v

I am french speaking so sometimes I get confused with the explanations.

Anyway it was fun keep it coming, I like it



Andre


Andre

[Turion]

Progress report.

My big generator is up and running. Air cores aren't putting out NEARLY the power of the iron cores. I have yet to try Metglass cores even though I have enough Metglass to put cores in 12 coils.

With air cores it is probably COP>3, and possibly higher with the recovery circuit.

With iron cores, magnetic neutralization and the proper circuit, I'd bet COP >10. With Metglass cores, even higher. I have numbers. I have measured input vs output. It may sound like a fantasy, but I don't care. It's right here on my bench. With iron cores I have gotten 130 volts at 1.7 amps per coil (UNDER LOAD) times 12 coils. The input is 24 volts at 30 amps, of which 80% can be recovered. 1800 rpm because of the magnetic lock.

With the air cores it cost me 7.2 amps at 24 volts (NO load).

With magnetic neutralization of the attraction of the rotor magnets to the cores, I should get close to that same cost with iron cores. Metglass cores INCREASE the output. RPM's with air cores was 2880. If I get close to that with iron cores because of magnetic neutralization, it will produce even more power per watt consumed.

Dave

[Dwane]

Stephen Brown,

If you can show me a battery attached to a motor and flywheel running a
rotor with magnets on it and two coils that you have wound, we have some common ground to begin a discussion. If not, please don't bother to post here. Can I be any more clear than that.

Dave

Hello Dave Alias Turion,
I have entered this thread late in the piece.

I actually have done what you have requested on another thread starting on page 9:- http://www.energeticforum.com/john-b...-watson-9.html

The response was pretty ordinary. Ever since several posts attempting to generate some interest, I have been unable to make any further posts. Even when I have brought the issue of being unable to post to the attention of Aaron, nothing has been done. I now favour another forum.

I have since made some leaps and bounds with this project. Why would I want to share information that is not wanted? I fear that something like the "Free Energy Generator" is too difficult for the general populace. There are only ever a few that will commit to working assiduously and in silence, often with many failures. Especially when there is a lot of work involved before any progress can be made. That in itself is sufficient warning to keep away from forums where members are called morons or intimidated by "SENIOR" posters who for example think that because they have many posts they know what they are talking about. When in fact, these individuals are the morons who are unable to see the wood for the trees.

I will mention one finding that I have made with the FEG, which might interest yourself. This is, "it is possible to run the FEG without the motor, instead using the motor to run another load". Really a problem in logic!

I fear, as much as you have altruistic motives that demonstrate an interested in promoting a transparent approach to work within the field of "Vacuum Physics", you are wasting your time. To my mind, if you have succeeded in getting the FEG to work, I would be looking at development opportunities that would advertise its purpose to the well being of the energy sector.

Regards

Dwane

[stargate22]

A very basic free-cheese device...thoughts?

Creating Free Energy using Magnets!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IakAwVHdivA


There has got to be something to this "Mono-pole" trick ?

[Matthew Jones]

Pretty elaborate if its a trick. If its real then its simple to build. Try it!!

Matt

[blackchisel97]

Creating Free Energy using Magnets!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IakAwVHdivA
There has got to be something to this "Mono-pole" trick ?

Hidden button cells and reed switch which is activated by magnet held in hand. Magnets on the rotor play no role in it except for the flywheel effect and their polarity doesn't matter.

V

[Matthew Jones]

Damn I was hoping someone would build it. LOL

[stargate22]

Fan..

Yes, it's an old trick which is already known, but pay attention to what is different in the video....as far as "REED" switches. batts, etc.

Anybody noticed the trees for the forest ?

[Turion]

Thoughts

Once AGAIN we have people showing YouTube videos of crap they found on the internet instead of doing the work themselves and showing the results. There is NO free lunch. You are not going to find the secret to free energy from YouTube videos some idiot posts on the internet. You MIGHT find it if you got off your butt and built something.

Dwane,

Glad to hear you have made significant progress with your research since your last post on the other thread. I read through everything you posted there.

I have also been able to run my device as a motor and/or generator. I tried it the way you are describing with circuits to run as a motor and generator and burnt up a $300 circuit board in the process because it couldn't handle the high output of the system. It also put out LESS power from what I could tell. So I am back to simple again.

On another thread on this forum, an individual intimated that I am less far along in my progress than he is because I am using a motor separate from the generator. When I asked him if he had been able to loop his system he replied that he had no interest in looping the system. I do.

Here is my view on this issue. For me it is as simple as the answer to one question. What combination gives me the MOST usable energy production in watts of power compared to the watts of power used by the system. Notice I did NOT say "input" into the system. I said "used by the system". When I can put power in, but recover it, I do not count that as power "used by the system" for obvious reasons.

When you run this as two separate and distinct devices, the benefits and problems are different than when it is ONE combined device. If and when someone comes forward with a working mo/gen device they are willing to disclose that puts out more usable power than the one I have sitting on my bench, then I will pay attention to them. Until then, they are all talk and theory as far as I am concerned.

I have seen an output of 1.7 amps per coil at 130 volts per coil x 12 coils or 2,652 watts. My generator does this right now with iron core coils. And the generator speeds up under load. That is my output. I also know what I am inputting into the system and how much of that I am able to recover. Now speeding up under load may not be of BENEFIT with a mo/gen combination, and may in fact be harmful, but when you have two separate and distinct devices, and you can get more generated energy (more rpm means higher output) then I can work with that, as long as it does not INCREASE the front end "used by the system" cost. There is all kind of debate about How or Why a generator will speed up under load, but in the final analysis, when I have a coil of a specific size with a specific core, and by changing the wiring configuration on that coil I can get my generator to produce MORE rpm when loaded rather than bogging down the motor that is turning it, THAT is of benefit to me as long as the watts produced by that coil do not decrease. If someone has a coil that produces more power from the system for less overall cost, I would be interested in that for sure. I have had discussions with at least ONE individual on how to build such a coil and am looking into how to do it without it making me insane.

As I look at your build on the other forum, the progression I went through comes to mind.

How does the size of the magnet impact the output of the coil?
How does the distance of the magnet from the coil impact the output of the coil
How does the kind of magnet used affect the output of the coil
How do multiple wires on the coil affect the output of the coil.
How does the core material affect the output of the coil
How does the lack of core material affect the output of the coil.
How does speeding up under load affect the output of the entire device in relation to the energy consumed to operate it.

I am working with a machine that has rotor/magnet/rotor/magnet/rotor.

What led to this point.
The output of a coil when exposed to one magnet.
The output of a coil when exposed to two magnets at the same time.

With my setup I have 12 coils aligned with 18 magnets (one on each side of each coil, but the magnets in the center have a coil on each side of them)

There are six magnets per rotor. Each will, at some point in rotation, be aligned directly with a coil, creating a state of magnetic lock. How do you overcome the magnetic lock of 18 magnets to 12 coils?

Changing the number of magnets on the rotor is a simple solution for decreasing the magnetic lock potential, but does not eliminate it. It reduces the number of coils to 4 in direct alignment at one time. An additional modification I came up with reduces it to 2 coils at one time. A small motor SHOULD turn this configuration without burning up, and I cooked several small razor scooter motors trying to run this big generator. This LAST change came to me the other night, and I have yet to implement it. The last time I ran the generator with four cores lined up it was STILL too much for the razor scooter motor. I have not built new rotors for my machine, but I DID remove 4 of the existing magnets on each rotor at one point, which only allowed 4 coils at a time to be in magnetic lock. I have not tried to run it with the new configuration yet.

I also tried it just this past weekend with air cores and they put out far less power. This is why I have not run the configuration with only two coils in magnetic lock. I pulled the core material out of ALL my coils to see the output with air cores. It wasn't enough. I am back to core material and believe that Metglass cores are the answer to even higher production than what I currently have. We will see.

What I believe is the final obstacle to having a machine that incorporates the very, very best of everything I have learned incorporated into the design is something I call "magnetic Neutralization, where the attraction of the rotating magnets to the iron of the coil core is eliminated or "neutralized", thus requiring TREMENDOUSLY LESS power consumption by the system.

As an example.... IF (and it's a very big IF) I can turn the rotor with magnets on it for the same cost I was able to turn it past air core coils, yet obtain the output I get from iron cores, and collect back 80% of the power introduced into the system in the first place, I will have a COP>70. When the iron core coils are replaced with Metglass cores, I would expect that number to increase significantly.

That is where I am at the present time:
I have a generator that will put out the power I require, and may put out more with Metglass cores.
I have a motor that SHOULD turn the system for a reasonable input cost.
I have a method for collecting 80+ % of the energy input into the system

What is left to do:

Test configurations of the Magnetic Neutralization concept to see if it is viable.
Build a prototype that incorporates this into the build
Make the changes to elements of the present configuration that have exhibited a problem. There are several of these, but I have developed solutions for all of them. None of the changes would impact current input or output values. In fact, they might increase the output.

Get a butt load of folks to replicate.

Dave

[Turion]

Stargate22,
What is different about the reed switch, batteries, etc. that YOU see but we don't. Oh, other than the fact that they are HIDDEN and NO ONE can see them...except of course YOU. You claim to be able to or how would you know there is something different about them?

[Dwane]

Once AGAIN we have people showing YouTube videos of crap they found on the internet instead of doing the work themselves and showing the results. There is NO free lunch. You are not going to find the secret to free energy from YouTube videos some idiot posts on the internet. You MIGHT find it if you got off your butt and built something.

Dwane,

Glad to hear you have made significant progress with your research since your last post on the other thread. I read through everything you posted there.

I have also been able to run my device as a motor and/or generator. I tried it the way you are describing with circuits to run as a motor and generator and burnt up a $300 circuit board in the process because it couldn't handle the high output of the system. It also put out LESS power from what I could tell. So I am back to simple again.

On another thread on this forum, an individual intimated that I am less far along in my progress than he is because I am using a motor separate from the generator. When I asked him if he had been able to loop his system he replied that he had no interest in looping the system. I do.

Here is my view on this issue. For me it is as simple as the answer to one question. What combination gives me the MOST usable energy production in watts of power compared to the watts of power used by the system. Notice I did NOT say "input" into the system. I said "used by the system". When I can put power in, but recover it, I do not count that as power "used by the system" for obvious reasons.

When you run this as two separate and distinct devices, the benefits and problems are different than when it is ONE combined device. If and when someone comes forward with a working mo/gen device they are willing to disclose that puts out more usable power than the one I have sitting on my bench, then I will pay attention to them. Until then, they are all talk and theory as far as I am concerned.

I have seen an output of 1.7 amps per coil at 130 volts per coil x 12 coils or 2,652 watts. My generator does this right now with iron core coils. And the generator speeds up under load. That is my output. I also know what I am inputting into the system and how much of that I am able to recover. Now speeding up under load may not be of BENEFIT with a mo/gen combination, and may in fact be harmful, but when you have two separate and distinct devices, and you can get more generated energy (more rpm means higher output) then I can work with that, as long as it does not INCREASE the front end "used by the system" cost. There is all kind of debate about How or Why a generator will speed up under load, but in the final analysis, when I have a coil of a specific size with a specific core, and by changing the wiring configuration on that coil I can get my generator to produce MORE rpm when loaded rather than bogging down the motor that is turning it, THAT is of benefit to me as long as the watts produced by that coil do not decrease. If someone has a coil that produces more power from the system for less overall cost, I would be interested in that for sure. I have had discussions with at least ONE individual on how to build such a coil and am looking into how to do it without it making me insane.

As I look at your build on the other forum, the progression I went through comes to mind.

How does the size of the magnet impact the output of the coil?
How does the distance of the magnet from the coil impact the output of the coil
How does the kind of magnet used affect the output of the coil
How do multiple wires on the coil affect the output of the coil.
How does the core material affect the output of the coil
How does the lack of core material affect the output of the coil.
How does speeding up under load affect the output of the entire device in relation to the energy consumed to operate it.

I am working with a machine that has rotor/magnet/rotor/magnet/rotor.

What led to this point.
The output of a coil when exposed to one magnet.
The output of a coil when exposed to two magnets at the same time.

With my setup I have 12 coils aligned with 18 magnets (one on each side of each coil, but the magnets in the center have a coil on each side of them)

There are six magnets per rotor. Each will, at some point in rotation, be aligned directly with a coil, creating a state of magnetic lock. How do you overcome the magnetic lock of 18 magnets to 12 coils?

Changing the number of magnets on the rotor is a simple solution for decreasing the magnetic lock potential, but does not eliminate it. It reduces the number of coils to 4 in direct alignment at one time. An additional modification I came up with reduces it to 2 coils at one time. A small motor SHOULD turn this configuration without burning up, and I cooked several small razor scooter motors trying to run this big generator. This LAST change came to me the other night, and I have yet to implement it. The last time I ran the generator with four cores lined up it was STILL too much for the razor scooter motor. I have not built new rotors for my machine, but I DID remove 4 of the existing magnets on each rotor at one point, which only allowed 4 coils at a time to be in magnetic lock. I have not tried to run it with the new configuration yet.

I also tried it just this past weekend with air cores and they put out far less power. This is why I have not run the configuration with only two coils in magnetic lock. I pulled the core material out of ALL my coils to see the output with air cores. It wasn't enough. I am back to core material and believe that Metglass cores are the answer to even higher production than what I currently have. We will see.

What I believe is the final obstacle to having a machine that incorporates the very, very best of everything I have learned incorporated into the design is something I call "magnetic Neutralization, where the attraction of the rotating magnets to the iron of the coil core is eliminated or "neutralized", thus requiring TREMENDOUSLY LESS power consumption by the system.

As an example.... IF (and it's a very big IF) I can turn the rotor with magnets on it for the same cost I was able to turn it past air core coils, yet obtain the output I get from iron cores, and collect back 80% of the power introduced into the system in the first place, I will have a COP>70. When the iron core coils are replaced with Metglass cores, I would expect that number to increase significantly.

That is where I am at the present time:
I have a generator that will put out the power I require, and may put out more with Metglass cores.
I have a motor that SHOULD turn the system for a reasonable input cost.
I have a method for collecting 80+ % of the energy input into the system

What is left to do:

Test configurations of the Magnetic Neutralization concept to see if it is viable.
Build a prototype that incorporates this into the build
Make the changes to elements of the present configuration that have exhibited a problem. There are several of these, but I have developed solutions for all of them. None of the changes would impact current input or output values. In fact, they might increase the output.

Get a butt load of folks to replicate.

Dave

Very long and detailed reply. I shall cover some of the ares that concern my use of the FEG. I am only concerned with building a workable unit!

I suppose I am working on converting my unit to a multi purpose unit. The current coils are third generation. As spools are hard to come by I am using those generally reserved for the monopole units. My present coils are trifilar wound, but connected in series. Each coil has its own circuit and FWBR all connecting to the main caps, similar to the monopole design. There are eight coils with 75 meters of wire on each coil. I have chosen solid cores for convenience only, and could improve the current rating by using a laminated core.

I am using 40x20x5 N35 neodymium magnets. I found N50's to be too powerful: only in as much as they emphasised the shuddering as the motor drove my flywheel/rotor. The lesser value magnets work OK. When energised I now get approx 50v on coil charge and over 400v on BEMF. I can charge 200,000uf to 50v in about half a second. I cap dump discharge back to the batteries over a 1ms period which gives me a pulse shape similar to that in the original document produced by John Bedini. The Joules in that period are mind blowing and I leave you to calculate that!!! We are talking Mega.

That was a worry for me. I was fearful of too much gassing within the batteries and consequent repercussions. I therefore chose to reroute the energy. I stumbled upon a method, with my "Tinkering" ( now a valuable scientific method!) whereby I was able to run the coils - without using an input oscillator - and generate the same energy! Therefore, I am now working to prove that indeed this is a realistic interpretation of the theory behind the FEG.

By rerouting the energy from the cap dump via the motor, I am still able to maximise the importance of the flywheel. The only difference is than now I should be able to drive a regular generator which will give me an AC output that will directly power mainstream appliances and the like without having to introduce a DC - AC convertor into the FEG equation.

Unlike the original Kromrey convertor, I have not witnessed a speeding up of the motor if I short the coils or increase the load. What I have found, and this is something you will appreciate as a builder, is that synchronising the pulses though the motor can cause unwanted acceleration. Thus, we return to the tuned circuit concept, that the FEG in all reality has to be designed to be coupled with a known load.

When you say you are working with a "rotor/magnet/rotor/magnet/rotor" are you cascading through sequential coil assemblies? If so, I am working on something similar. However, my preliminary thoughts indicate that to be successful would require installing an incremental binary coded sequence. Somewhat similar to the notion of Tom Beardon's MEG output. It has merit for me so far in my thoughts. Working with a greatly magnified output has its challenges though.

I do not think air core for this unit would be appropriate due to the power required. I even wonder, as the unit requires the repulse action of the coil cores whether Metglas would work efficiently in this instance. I have never worked with Metglass, too hard to get for me.

I shall leave it there for the moment, I like your initiative and experimentation. Hopefully, we might be able to co-operate further with our experiences.

Regards

Dwane

[Turion]

Response

Dwane,
I am not cascading through coils in series.

To be completely honest, right now I am concentrating on what I have learned about the physical aspects of the build in order to put together the easiest to assemble, strongest, and most productive assembly I can come up with that neutralizes magnetic attraction, doesn't suck the magnets out of my rotors over the long haul when the stresses of running for long periods of time take their toll, and gives me a platform to continue to experiment with the electrical side of this work. I am fairly well convinced that eventually I WILL run this as a mo/gen without the need for the razor scooter motor to drive it. And if Matt and I don't come up with a realistic way to do that, others will once we show how we've put all these different things together in one unit. It will be a while until the next prototype is built. It costs money, and I have to be a little careful about spending for a while. I was forced to buy a new car when my old one died, and that was a large expense I hadn't counted on. So my big gen may have made it's last run except for show and tell when people come over.

Matt built a small prototype unit that incorporates most of what we know and understand that I will be trying to get together this next week. It will incorporate many of the things YOU are working on because it will be self driven rather than driven by an external motor. I have the coil cores made, but now I need to spend some time winding coils. I hope to spend the entire day Monday doing that, and get the little prototype put together. Matt is working on the electronics part of it right now. If it works, and is a self runner, we will be showing it on the forum so folks can replicate. That may be a couple weeks away, since I leave for Arizona in five days and will be gone for a week.

I will keep you posted on the progress on both machines.

Dave

[erfinder]

On another thread on this forum, an individual intimated that I am less far along in my progress than he is because I am using a motor separate from the generator. When I asked him if he had been able to loop his system he replied that he had no interest in looping the system. I do.

You are far less along in your progress because you do not see that the motor is a generator. Whine all you want, you know it's true, and if you don't, its recommended you invest more time investigating the suggestion than in trying to justify your ignorance.

Ignorance motivates the question of whether my device has been looped. The obsession with looping is paralyzing progress of not only what you do but what the majority of folks do. My objective is finding the mechanism for accomplishing unity. Like most you ask the wrong damn questions. Wrong questions come out of garbage interpretations which come out of trying to find secret sauce. The right question would have been "How close are you to unity?" The logical next question, "How do you go about accomplishing unity?" After getting a logical response which would have given you the relations between my unity generating mechanism and recovery, you could have moved to the next series of question. No instead of being smart and open like you portray yourself to be, you return back to the mediocre, and give another person your negative opinion of me as if I were not in the same room?!

Build you a system and loop it, I repeat, I don't care about looping, and don't care if you do. Without a plan, without an understanding of how the circuit can sustain itself you're wasting your time. But hey, it's your time, waste as much as you like.

Here is my view on this issue. For me it is as simple as the answer to one question. What combination gives me the MOST usable energy production in watts of power compared to the watts of power used by the system. Notice I did NOT say "input" into the system. I said "used by the system". When I can put power in, but recover it, I do not count that as power "used by the system" for obvious reasons.

You don't say input, however, from your description one can see you are still comparing input versus output. It's ok, you don't know any better. I already suggested what combination gives me the greatest energy. The generator inside your motor is generating and dissipating POWER at a rate which is almost equal to that which is being supplied to it! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GET!!! Others far smarter than I would like to make myself out to be have been screaming this very same thing that I am suggesting now for years, you weren't/aren't listening to them either. I demonstrated the two ways that I view energy. Namely, as its being dissipated, or as its accumulating, in both cases in joules per second. I suggested that when the motors own generator action is inverted, the rate at which energy can be transferred and accumulated per second can equal the impressed and dissipated energy per second! I suggested that the transferred can exceed the applied under ideal circumstances. I went on to suggest that the recovery under this set of circumstances, where unity is established via the proper generating (transfer and condensing) mechanism, can be the minimum 30%. Now your recovery becomes the means through which you can exceed unity, assuming you haven't exceeded it already by amplifying the generating (rate at which energy is transferred and accumulated) mechanism.

When you run this as two separate and distinct devices, the benefits and problems are different than when it is ONE combined device. If and when someone comes forward with a working mo/gen device they are willing to disclose that puts out more usable power than the one I have sitting on my bench, then I will pay attention to them. Until then, they are all talk and theory as far as I am concerned.

In my opinion you aren't qualified to comment on systems where motoring and generating are united, but hey...neither am I. There is a difference between us however, a difference which gives my suggestions relating to the same a little more weight than your suggestions, specifically, I have such a system, and can and have demonstrated what I suggest. I am not the guy who is going to demonstrate how I go about accomplishing what I suggest with those who don't care about my effort. So Hell no, I am not willing to disclose, and I am positive if you were in the same boat, you wouldn't either. I am in no hurry to share what has taken me years to understand with folks who will beat each other with clubs trying to be the first through the door of the patent office with their gadgets inspired by my ideas.

I am not asking you to pay attention, you are doing what I want you to do already. For the record, I don't mind being all talk and theory as far as you are concerned, however, we both know that you know this is not the case, and as such, I am honored you think of me when trying to school others.


Regards

[Turion]

erfinder,
Wow. Way to get fired up over nothing. If you have bothered to read the 3BGS thread, you would know that we have been running a DC motor as a motor AND a generator at the exact same time for like 10 years now, and have disclosed the circuit to do that with an off the shelf DC motor countless times. Set it up, measure the input to the motor and the output FROM the motor and you will see that's EXACTLY what is happening, and without all the complicated switching. So PLEASE don't tell me I "DO NOT GET IT" Just because I am finding a different way through the forest does not mean it isn't a "way" and it may be better than yours.

You deride me for comparing "input" to "output". I don't. I never have. I stated very clearly that I compare the power USED by the system, regardless of input (since better that 80% can be recovered) to power output by the system. By power used, I mean power that has been input into the system and for a variety of reasons, is no longer available to do work. Whether it be friction losses,losses in the circuit itself or whatever. And I put it in EXACTLY those terms, and emphasized that I do NOT consider power that is recovered as power "used" by the system, regardless of input. The comparison of power USED in watts vs power produced in watts is necessary to evaluate what you have. If you can't understand that it is of no use to build a machine that puts out 300 watts if it consumes 400 watts to produce it, then I feel bad for you.

If you will notice, I ALSO admitted that there might be a way to run this generator as both a motor and a generator. I said that. It's right there in writing. I also said I have yet to see a way to do that which is more productive than what I have. MY goal is to get a unit out there that incorporates all the things that I have learned that make a system COP>3 and probably MUCH better than THAT, so that others can replicate and improve on it. If YOU choose to show us how to make it run as BOTH a motor and a generator to eliminated the need for the external motor, and it produces MORE out for the same amount consumed, I would beHAPPY to throw the motor away. But you won't do that will you? You would rather just argue about who is smarter and who has the better machine instead of working for the common good. Building the best machine I can build with what I know now is what I am going to do. YOUR whining about what I know and what I don't know isn't going to stop me. Then you can show us how yours is sooooooooooo much better. But you won't do that will you? Didn't think so.
Dave