Basic Free Energy Device

[Ufopolitics]

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.

Marathonman,

Figuera uses a Mechanical Rotary Switch (part "G") to spin a Virtual Field.

The Fact that You can replace that "Mechanical" Rotary Switch by a Solid State Electronic Switch STILL does a Displacement over Time...means you are still depending on a Rotation or a Movement over time whether you do it based on mechanical or electronically...whether Linear, Circular, Elliptical or even reciprocating (understand as Forward-Backward) movements over Space/Time.

The perfect example for this scenario is the Tesla's AC Rotary Virtual Field Coils, (which gave birth to the Induction Motor) where coils were "apparently" stationary...but it caused that metal egg to spin...meaning He was spinning the Virtual Fields. We did not see but an egg spinning...obviously we are not capable to visualize a transparent, mass-less, weightless field rotating.


If You like We could continue this discussion in the Figueras Thread, but not here, I don't want to interrupt this Thread.

Sorry about this Dave Bowling, and if you ask me to, I will delete these posts immediately.


Thanks


Ufopolitics

[jettis]

We have all seen this video... Testing of Special Battery Arrangements (part 2) - YouTube

Honestly! I have seen similar results to Luc using all these devices as loads... various household and automotive bulbs, brushed and brushless DC motors, various resistors, with or without the boost converter. I have used wet cell lead acid, nicad's, glass mat batteries and even capacitors and arrived with the same result which is slightly higher than Luc's experiment above shows.

Luc's test is done at a very high discharge rate which will lessen the results somewhat but not enough to bring the secondary battery bank to much over 50% state of charge, even if a C-20 rate was to be used in the test.

The way I see the 3BGS, as set up by Luc in the video, in its raw form, is identical to a typical DC permanent magnet motor analogy where you have the Applied and the CEMF forces from the rotating magnetics interacting within the same power winding on a rotating DC motor, as the speed varies so does the CEMF and the applied relationship differentials. Just like the 3BGS. However in the 3BGS we add a load between the two opposing forces, like a DC motor, light or resistor inserted in between those two opposing forces. That is essentially what the 3BGS is in its raw state... What can be done with it? I do owe God, JB, PL, Erf. and many others for seeing what I see.

Dave Wing.

[Peter Lindemann]

Perhaps a little clarification....

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?

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hey UFO,

Actually, that is NOT what I said and it is NOT what I meant. Matt and Dave HAVE demonstrated that their 3BPS can and does maintain its operating potential and successfully powers "pulse style motors" for extended periods of time, representing HUNDREDS OF TIMES the energy content of the batteries used to accomplish this. That is what "running the motor for months" means. Under these circumstances, anything done with the mechanical energy produced by the motor during that period is FREE, for all intents and purposes. Essentially, we are talking about establishing a set of circuit conditions where "100% of the charge is both used and conserved" in the drive circuit. John Bedini started discussing these ideas over 10 years ago in the material about Gabriel Kron and his "shuttle circuits." Basically, the 3BPS shuttles the charges around and never dissipates the potential difference to ground. Done correctly, it can be done indefinitely (or in practical terms, "for a very long time").

IF the motor is used to turn a generator, then all of the electricity produced by that generator is FREE and can be used to power anything you want, including resistive loads if you want to produce FREE HEAT. The important point here is that NONE of the electricity produced by the generator is needed to keep the motor running. At least that is the goal of a well tuned system.

Dave tried to alert me to this discovery over 3 years ago, and I was just too busy to take a look at it. But that has changed now. As always, there is nothing quite like a working model sitting on your own bench to provide the mind with a little clarity.

If you are at all intrigued by this situation, I encourage you to look into it. If you do run some experiments, let us know how resistors work for you. Right now, I am just getting started and am happy to see what inductors are doing.

Best regards,
Peter

[Turion]

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.

If it is so "easy" then obviously you have a working system you can show us? I'm sure everyone would love to see a YouTube video of THAT! Replicators stand by!

I have some things I am working on that show promise, but nothing yet that exceeds the output of the generator run by a pulsed motor on the 3 Battery system. I'm pretty SURE it can be done, so that is the direction I am moving. IF and when I have something better than what has been shown here, you will probably hear about it here. BUT, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" as the saying goes, and I would advise anyone to BUILD what you have been shown WORKS, rather than going off down the path I am currently on. It is the direction I wanted to take people eventually so that they could see what I have seen, but as Peter said about the SSG, it is a LEARNING process. If you just give people a circuit before they understand the principles, you have a bunch of zombie replicators who know nothing except how to replicate and can't contribute to forward progress because they don't understand what they HAVE or WHY or HOW it works.

My gen will put out around 1800 watts right now and I can recover what goes in it to run it. I have some modifications to make to that machine that will significantly increase the output (according to tests I have made) and I need to make those modifications before I call it "done" and then I can see what I have. I think I will have maxed out the possible output of that system. But it's JUST A GENERATOR. It does speed up under load at 2800 rpm, but I believe ANY generator will speed up under load if run at the right rpm. I believe the reason not many people are seeing that is that they aren't building generators as BIG as the one I built, nor are they looking for that "range" in which it will speed up under load. Too fast, and it slows down again. Bob French has to run his SMALLER rotor at around 5,000 rpm to get the same effect, although with a different sized coil.

I edited this to add, I would have had all this done by now, as I have been saying the same thing for a few months, but every time I got a little ahead financially, I wound up in the emergency room AGAIN, and that just put a hole in my wallet every time. I have ANOTHER surgery scheduled for tomorrow and will be off my feet for a week, but this is just knee surgery, so nothing major. My only issue is I have had so much "down time" lately with health issues, the list of chores my wife wants completed is longer than my arm, and they need to take priority over this research, so you may not hear results from me for a while.

ALL I know is, the 3 Battery system can act as a source of power just like wind, solar, or moving water. It is what we DO with it that is going to make the difference. We can either work together or not. I will make progress regardless.

[Bob Smith]

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

FWIW, I hope this helps -
If we look at inductors, reactance is going to be greatest below its self-resonant frequency (SRF). Above SRF, reactance drops below zero and capacitance increases.

Textbooks will tell us that the inductor's reactance and capacitance cancel each other out when the inductor's SRF is reached. But what if there's more to be said about the behavior of inductors at SRF?

What if at resonance, the reactance and capacitance are actually working together? What I mean is:

... The reactance - a provoked charge response from the aether in opposition to the induced charge;
... The capacitance - the inductor's ability to store charge (for use in the circuit).

What I am proposing is that at resonance, the inductor's reactance is actually constituting extra charge from the ambient, and the inductor is able to store it in capacitor-like fashion. In effect, within this proposed understanding, through the interplay of reactance and capacitance, the inductor at resonance becomes a charge pump, drawing in charge from the aether. In this sense, resonance becomes the key that enables reactance and capacitance to work together, and renders the circuit an open system.

I would argue that this factors into the "speeding up under load" phenomenon, but that this phenomenon is just window dressing compared to what such a setup can actually provide...

Now what does that mean for hi-impedance coils, and why are they so often used in setups like this? I think I know the answer. Consider the relationship between an inductor's high impedance and reactance, and the latter's relationship with the ambient medium when pulsed at the proper frequency.

So, yeah, I would side with Dave and say that frequency for pulsing coils is crucial. Who else maintained that finding the inductor's SRF was crucial to his system?...

Respectfully,
Bob

[Turion]

Luc's Tests

Jettis,
I can put together all kinds of testing setups that will show that the 3 battery setup does not work. It's really EASY to do that.

I have said time after time after time after time that setups with small batteries have TOO MUCH resistance to charge to show what is POSSIBLE. You need large deep cycle golf cart batteries. The larger the better.

I have said that this setup requires at MINIMUM, a pulsed DC motor. If you don't understand WHY it has to be pulsed, you don't understand anything about this system.

The batteries MUST be rotated! You cannot discharge a battery down to 11 volts and expect to recharge it against all that resistance and show any positive results.

Luc had NONE of these things in his test setup yet concludes it is a "fair" test of the system. No, all it has done is demonstrate he is not able to follow simple directions. At a MINIMUM it demonstrates that the system he is testing has NOTHING to do with the system we are discussing HERE

Dave

[Mario]

Bob, I can see you have never actually hooked a cap to the coils of one of these types of generators and driven it at resonance, else you would know that at resonance the generator develops the greatest load there can be to the motor driving it.
The parameters at play in these low drag generators are: inductive reactance of the coil, resistance of the coil, core material reluctance and response speed, position of the coil on the core, speed of the magnet passing the coil, load resistance.

if you choose the right parameters and put a scope across a coil (and possibly a second channel across a coil that's in sync but unloaded for reference), you will see that depending on the impedance/resistance of the load, the wave will start to shift possibly towards a 90 degrees delay. This means that the CEMF developed obeying Lenz's law, instead of working against the passing magnet, as is the case without the shift, it occurs almost at TDC for the incoming part of the magnet, and in a place where it can't affect the magnet when the magnet is leaving the core. This part can actually contribute to the motoring part depending on magnet setup.

I have tried all I can think of to see if this shift can be helped with the use of caps or inductors. To long to list it all but the conclusion is (mine at least) that it can't be done, or it can be but there's no benefit from it.

Regarding resonance. If you connect a tuned cap on the output, as you go up in speed towards the resonant frequency, the tank circuit will start to act as a huge brake.
The more windings you put on a coil the higher its self inductance, the lower its self-resonant frequency (without cap). I wonder how many people at some point thought they had acceleration under load, while what was actually happening was that they brought their generator rpm up in the neighbourhood of the coil's resonant frequency. So without knowing they already had a brake on the thing and when a load was hooked to the generator, the load, by breaking resonance, made the thing actually speed up. That's not what we're after.
This is not just theory, I have actually tried all these things on the bench over the years.

Smaller rotors require higher speeds that larger ones. It's not just frequency that counts, it's the speed of the magnet passing the coil.
Let's say we have a small rotor with 6 magnets and large rotor with also 6 magnets. For same frequency and RPMS the results will be very different. The magnets on the big rotor travel much faster because of the larger radius than the ones on the smaller one. The bigger rotor requires more motive force though.
Just a few things I wanted to share...

Mario

[Turion]

I wonder how many people at some point thought they had acceleration under load, while what was actually happening was that they brought their generator rpm up in the neighbourhood of the coil's resonant frequency. So without knowing they already had a brake on the thing and when a load was hooked to the generator, the load, by breaking resonance, made the thing actually speed up.
Mario

Mario, The way I have tested for acceleration under load is to leave the coil open until I have the generator up to the specific RPM. Then I connect a load across the coil or short across the coil and the motor speeds up. I don't see HOW I could have a "break on the thing" when the coil is open, but perhaps I do not understand. It wouldn't be the first time.

And while the speed up is only about 30-40 RPM, at least it doesn't go DOWN in speed when the load is connected, which is what I am after.

Dave

[Mario]

Dave, I wasn't implying that it is your case. But it happens also when the coil is open and it can happen to a lesser degree (less braking) at a sub-resonant frequency.
The easiest thing to check is to hook a scope (or voltmeter) on the open coil and see if you find signs of resonant rise on the speed range you are planning to use with a given coil. Meaning a substantial increase in voltage while you go up in frequency, peaking at a certain frequency which gets lower again as you pass it still going up in frequency/rpms.
You need a lot of turns and some speed for this to happen though.

I wish you well for your surgery Dave

Mario

[BroMikey]

And while the speed up is only about 30-40 RPM, at least it doesn't
go DOWN in speed when the load is connected, which is what I am after.

Dave

Wow that is great. 1 coil that is placed across the rotor magnets generating
real power and helping the motor action? God that is good man I think
I'll get beside myself and do a dance. I believe you Dave, my upbringing
taught me to never call another man a liar, unless he actual proves to be
and then never say it. Not even hinting that others are a liar is nice in
my book.

The reason I believe you is 3 fold. I and doing it and Thane is also showing
these effects. What I can do is use the MODIFIED MOTOR at 1.1 amp
for 1 hour and the meter voltage drop is .03v per hr.

All other motors/ inverters drop the voltage much greater. Without the
special Mod Energize Motor my voltage drop is .12v per hour. Very significant.

I have worked all of my life in my electronics shop with my head down
till all of my strength was gone with joy. And with little direction I might
add. Now I have someone who speaks my language. Someone who
sees the small changes on the meter.

Thane has many examples of low lenz coils that speed up under load
or speed up only 5 rpm's. The ones that speed up fast often produce
a tiny bit less power at the 40 rpm increase. Or the one coil that is
wound to give the most power out at only a 5 rpm increase. This is
a trade off. As Mario pointed out self capacitance and resonance must
be considered and capacitance and inductance of the coil can be changed.

Series wound coils effect capacitance. Spacing in between layers of wire
on the spool effect coil self capacitance. I am also fairly certain that
core material changes can effect inductance in HENRY'S.

Your 1800 watt generator could probably fit 12 coils like you mentioned
and the RPM increase to the prime mover would provide another source
of power that would have to be dissipated so as not to damage batteries.

The RPM increase of 40 X 12 coils = a 480 RPM increase to the prime
mover. 12 coils should produce 200 watts? That is a grey area on what
these coils put out.

Thanks for clearing up the fact that so many experimenters do not
follow the proper setup as to why failure is eminent. What a shame.

I might also add that Peter L. giving hard data on his set up is making
my day. You got me goin Peter

[Turion]

Information

Mario,
I appreciate the information. I will test it as you suggested, but probably not for at least a week. Whether it is a "true" speed up under load or NOT it is allowing me to pull the energy out of my generator without slowing down my motor, which is all I really care about. But I understand that people want data.

BroMikey,
It sped up 30 rpm with ONE coil shorted and only two coils on the machine. The other one was running a load the entire time. With 12 coils it definitely speeds up, but I haven't determined how much, and am in the process of replacing coil cores with ferrite as they produce LOTS more power and lessen the magnetic drag. When you have 12 coils with iron cores, reducing magnetic drag is a BIG deal!

Dave

[jettis]

Jettis,
I can put together all kinds of testing setups that will show that the 3 battery setup does not work. It's really EASY to do that.

I have said time after time after time after time that setups with small batteries have TOO MUCH resistance to charge to show what is POSSIBLE. You need large deep cycle golf cart batteries. The larger the better.

I have said that this setup requires at MINIMUM, a pulsed DC motor. If you don't understand WHY it has to be pulsed, you don't understand anything about this system.

The batteries MUST be rotated! You cannot discharge a battery down to 11 volts and expect to recharge it against all that resistance and show any positive results.

Luc had NONE of these things in his test setup yet concludes it is a "fair" test of the system. No, all it has done is demonstrate he is not able to follow simple directions. At a MINIMUM it demonstrates that the system he is testing has NOTHING to do with the system we are discussing HERE

Dave

Dave,

Just so we are clear when that video was done you did not say Luc needed to do those things? Did you? You called him out for "probably" not using the correct motor. What did you mean by probably? And the first thing you said to him was you had done this exact test thousands of times... Like he was doing the test wrong. These things make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. I also understand I only have access to some of your reply to Luc as it was cutoff for being to long. So the context may not be entirely accurate, but close.

My conclusions are the same as Luc's for that particular test and it is 100% accurate. I have done my home work. That is all I said... Then I went into my views on the system and what I see.

Now rotating batteries, using pulse motors and generators etc... Will add to the system... I never disputed that.

Dave Wing

[Matthew Jones]

Dave,

Just so we are clear when that video was done you did not say Luc needed to do those things? Did you? You called him out for "probably" not using the correct motor. What did you mean by probably? And the first thing you said to him was you had done this exact test thousands of times... Like he was doing the test wrong. These things make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. I also understand I only have access to some of your reply to Luc as it was cutoff for being to long. So the context may not be entirely accurate, but close.

My conclusions are the same as Luc's for that particular test and it is 100% accurate. I have done my home work. That is all I said... Then I went into my views on the system and what I see.

Now rotating batteries, using pulse motors and generators etc... Will add to the system... I never disputed that.

Dave Wing

No matter how he did the test he reported the wrong numbers. No matter the arrangement of battery or power source the DC voltage is measured from the lowest point to the highest point. It does not matter whether you have series batteries, parallel batteries or some kind of hybrid combination...The voltage is measured from low to high. Thats a FACT!! So his entire test has no premise, the test is wrong, Period..
You have no ability, with meters, to know exactly what is going to the third battery. You have to capacity map the battery and know its internal resistance.
Why anyone would look at the info he reported and believe that LUC knew what he doing is beyond me. If anyone believes that those videos are good information they are already to far gone to fix.

Matt

[jettis]

No matter how he did the test he reported the wrong numbers. No matter the arrangement of battery or power source the DC voltage is measured from the lowest point to the highest point. It does not matter whether you have series batteries, parallel batteries or some kind of hybrid combination...The voltage is measured from low to high. Thats a FACT!! So his entire test has no premise, the test is wrong, Period..
You have no ability, with meters, to know exactly what is going to the third battery. You have to capacity map the battery and know its internal resistance.
Why anyone would look at the info he reported and believe that LUC knew what he doing is beyond me. If anyone believes that those videos are good information they are already to far gone to fix.

Matt

I do not care about his numbers... Period. All I care about is a known load runtime in minutes in the 3BGS as run by Luc, vs conventional known load runtime in minutes. Compare amp hours to amp hours. Compare the two and see what you get. Take all the pulse motors and generators out of the system and you have straight loss, not gain in any way shape or form. My research tells me this!

Dave Wing

[Turion]

Clarification

Jettis,

I said Luc "probably" used the wrong motor because I couldn't tell from the video if that was a PULSE motor or not, which I have said MANY times is essential. I believe someone pointed out to me that it WAS, but I don't remember. I have to say I discounted his test simply because I KNOW he is incorrect. In his conclusions.


When I said I have done that same test, to determine how long three charged batteries could power a PULSED DC motor running a load as opposed to the SAME three batteries running the SAME PULSED DC motor running the same load in the 3 battery configuration, which is the ESSENCE of what he is trying to determine, I have done THAT test hundreds of times over the last 8 years with extended (beyond what they SHOULD have been) runs of hours, days, weeks, depending on the batteries and their condition when I started. When the batteries are properly rotated you will exceed the rated amp hours of production by MANY times. That is an absolute FACT. That people still want to argue the point after all this time just boggles my mind. But hey, people are entitled to their opinion.

If you choose to accept his conclusions, then the entire premise of this thread is worthless to you and you shouldn't waste your time here. If you are willing to accept that what we are saying is possible and actually BUULD the thing, run it on the right kind of batteries, rotate the batteries and add a little generated power back into the system once in a while, you won't need to listen to me or Luc, because you will know.

The difference here is you BELIEVE Luc is correct and I KNOW he is wrong. It's as simple as that.

If you take the pulse motor out of the system it WILL NOT DO what we say it will do. The pulse motor is essential. That I absolutely agree with

Dave