Where is the free energy?

[mbrownn]

I will do it in my mind, if that is OK with you. Much quicker and less expensive .
- I close sw-E and motor 5 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the last battery.
- I open sw-E and close sw-D. Motor 4 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the last battery also with 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the last battery is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 2-battery stack has lost 2 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
- I open sw-D and close sw-C. Motor 3 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the 2-battery stack, each battery with 1 unit of energy from the 3-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the 2-battery stack is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 3-battery stack has lost 3 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
.... I guess you can fill in how it will continue and you will end up with the 5-battery stack being drained of 5 units of energy (1 unit for each battery) all other batteries are full.

I know what you were thinking, but you have been misled by the famous Bearden. Current alone usually is no energy, you need a current and a voltage difference.
I say 'usually' because there is an exception to this rule: eddie-currents.

You may not agree with me (yet), but that time will surely come. An electric motor is no free energy device. Wish it were that simple!



Ernst.

I will add a few points to your explanation.

You cant have current flow without either a potential difference (voltage) or a dynamic magnetic field.

Not literally, but effectively power is recycled in Jettis's circuit but it has all the problems of losses so eventually we end up with flat batteries. Because of efficiency losses this simple system is unlikely to make up those losses by using the mechanical output of the motor. Theoretically we could have 3 to 1 but these types of motor are usually 50% efficient or less which gives us 1.5 to 1. Then when we add the losses of the generator and associated battery swapping etc we end up just less than 1 to 1

My conclusion is that we just have to find the right method of recycling and the right device, run in the right way and we will get more out than we put in. It is possible in my opinion.

I am interested in your exception "eddy currents" why are they an exception?

[boguslaw]

I will do it in my mind, if that is OK with you. Much quicker and less expensive .
- I close sw-E and motor 5 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the last battery.
- I open sw-E and close sw-D. Motor 4 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the last battery also with 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the last battery is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 2-battery stack has lost 2 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
- I open sw-D and close sw-C. Motor 3 runs for 10 minutes consuming 1 unit of energy from the 2-battery stack. But that is not all, at the same time we are charging the 2-battery stack, each battery with 1 unit of energy from the 3-battery stack. So, after 10 minutes the 2-battery stack is recharged (assuming no losses) but the 3-battery stack has lost 3 units of energy. (one unit for each battery in the stack)
.... I guess you can fill in how it will continue and you will end up with the 5-battery stack being drained of 5 units of energy (1 unit for each battery) all other batteries are full.

I know what you were thinking, but you have been misled by the famous Bearden. Current alone usually is no energy, you need a current and a voltage difference.
I say 'usually' because there is an exception to this rule: eddie-currents.

You may not agree with me (yet), but that time will surely come. An electric motor is no free energy device. Wish it were that simple!



Ernst.

Hmm...strange....I thought you already posted Alexanderson patent describing exactly electric motor producing 3 times more power on output ?

[ldrancer]

got a question...
is there, such a thing as torque? like hp torque

[Ernst]

Hmm...strange....I thought you already posted Alexanderson patent describing exactly electric motor producing 3 times more power on output ?

I did? Where?


Ernst.

[Ernst]

I will add a few points to your explanation.

You cant have current flow without either a potential difference (voltage) or a dynamic magnetic field.

Not literally, but effectively power is recycled in Jettis's circuit but it has all the problems of losses so eventually we end up with flat batteries. Because of efficiency losses this simple system is unlikely to make up those losses by using the mechanical output of the motor. Theoretically we could have 3 to 1 but these types of motor are usually 50% efficient or less which gives us 1.5 to 1. Then when we add the losses of the generator and associated battery swapping etc we end up just less than 1 to 1

My conclusion is that we just have to find the right method of recycling and the right device, run in the right way and we will get more out than we put in. It is possible in my opinion.

I am interested in your exception "eddy currents" why are they an exception?

You end your post asking a question that you answer in the beginning of your post; In a circular current you can not have a potential difference, thus you need another driving force such as a changing magnetic field.

Theoretically (read my explanation) Jettis circuit could have 1 to 1, but the losses will reduce that to less than .6 to 1.


Ernst.

[boguslaw]

I did? Where?


Ernst.

Ooops sorry. Not you but Erfinder on another forum . Critical Thinking
Patent of Alexander Robert W.

[Ernst]

Ooops sorry. Not you but Erfinder on another forum . Critical Thinking
Patent of Alexander Robert W.

Good! I'm not schizo (yet).


Ernst.

[mbrownn]

Hmm...strange....I thought you already posted Alexanderson patent describing exactly electric motor producing 3 times more power on output ?

I could write a book about what is there in that patent.

Key points

1) BEMF/Generated current travel in the same direction as half of the wave in a transformer output. Both can exist in the same winding at the same time.

2) Transformer actions, a motor and a generator all operating on the same iron core so that there is only one set of bearing losses, iron losses and copper losses instead of 3. A significant efficiency advantage.

I have never managed to get my hands on such a device but I know of another that employs some of the the same principals which I have been working on. I have separated out much of the BEMF to produce generated current, and had significant efficiency gains because of the single core. What I haven't fully sorted is separating the full AC wave out without loosing half of the wave but I'm getting closer.

You end your post asking a question that you answer in the beginning of your post; In a circular current you can not have a potential difference, thus you need another driving force such as a changing magnetic field.

From what we understand all currents along conductor have to be circular because we have a return path. In our circuits we employ either chemical or magnetic forces to create the potential that we call voltage.

I think eddy currents have the latter to drive them.

The multiple battery system is interesting to me because the losses in the motor don't add up to what we find in the charging battery when we use the motor as a wire. We find we have only lost what we would have lost in a similar wire of the same ohmic resistance plus the BEMF. no energy was consumed by the mechanical power of the motor.

If our motor is running free we have high BEMF and we loose over 90% of the voltage and no current. Most of this is BEMF an a little is ohmic resistance. If the motor is fully loaded we loose 50% of the voltage through BEMF and a little ohmic resistance, and no current. With the motor stalled we loose only the ohmic resistance and the magnetism appeared to have cost nothing.

As far as the charging battery was concerned when compared to the amount lost from the source, there was not enough difference for me to say that the motor consumed anything other than ohmic resistance losses.

I accept that I wasn’t using ideal charging rates between the three tests and the free running motor performed best but that was closer to the C20 charge rate. The worst loss was the stalled motor but this was charging the battery in less than an hour. When you charge a lead acid battery this fast you usually get a poor charge efficiency.

Transients and the pulsing effect may have helped during the motor running tests.

I did think that what some have said about the energy that had passed through the motor was true, It was shorted out on the source creating heat in the source.

I used 3 x 6v 6Ah motorcycle batteries and a 12v fan, obviously the fan was running much slower than normal. No load was done by removing the fan blades, load was using the fan blades and stall was stopping the fan blades. I'm sure the fan would have burned out, but I put the motor into the end of the vacuum cleaner hose for cooling when it got very hot.

Not very scientific

[jettis]

You end your post asking a question that you answer in the beginning of your post; In a circular current you can not have a potential difference, thus you need another driving force such as a changing magnetic field.

Theoretically (read my explanation) Jettis circuit could have 1 to 1, but the losses will reduce that to less than .6 to 1.


Ernst.

How much in the form of losses should one expect to receive with the substitution of a light bulb instead of an electric motor?

-Dave Wing

[boguslaw]

Hey hey !

Do you know , I realized now we may that have free energy in plain picture visible in Tesla patents ? Oh boy, why it took so long ?

In many Tesla patents circuit controller is a motor with attached make&break component ; powered by the same power source as the capacitor which is discharging into primary. This motor is free running if you only tap output of secondary and rectify and use DC-DC buck converter.

[Ted Ewert]

I could write a book about what is there in that patent.

Key points

1) BEMF/Generated current travel in the same direction as half of the wave in a transformer output. Both can exist in the same winding at the same time.

2) Transformer actions, a motor and a generator all operating on the same iron core so that there is only one set of bearing losses, iron losses and copper losses instead of 3. A significant efficiency advantage.

I have never managed to get my hands on such a device but I know of another that employs some of the the same principals which I have been working on. I have separated out much of the BEMF to produce generated current, and had significant efficiency gains because of the single core. What I haven't fully sorted is separating the full AC wave out without loosing half of the wave but I'm getting closer.

The BEMF had me stumped until I thought about the proximity of the next pole. As long as it's close it will be pulling against that BEMF as the next drive pulse is actuated. This would immediately split the lines of force away from the last pole, further reducing the BEMF.
I don't think this type of mechanism will work on any old self made motor. I think you would have to get a standard DC motor rewound, or construct one with with very tight poles.

[Bob Smith]

Just a thought: You may also have to change the width of your magnets in accordance with your coil size to capitalize on induction from your coils.

Taking a cue from Erfinder's work, I think it's important to remember that your maximum point of induction as a magnet passes over a coil is followed by a quick zero crossing, introduction of BEMF, then back to zero crossing. If you can find a way to use the BEMF to your advantage, a new set of possibilities for your motor emerges.
Bob