ANOTHER Basic Free Energy Device

[Turion]

Can you get a gain from an inductive spike?
Can you get a gain from a transient spike?
Can you get a gain from the change in flux from a magnetic field if you do NOT "pay" for the change?
Can electrical energy be trapped or stored in a coil?


In other words, if YOU charge a coil with electricity, can you set it on the shelf, and then go back days or YEARS later and harvest that electricity from the coil to do work, like lighting up a lightbulb?
If you know how to do that, I believe you MIGHT be on the right right path to using electrical energy to create MORE energy.

I would like to hear thoughts on this. Can this be done? Can YOU do it, and if so, how?

Let's hear it.

P.S. If I didn't think it could be done, I wouldn't be wasting your time, but wanted to here the pros AND cons to see what people think and what is limiting our understanding of how electricity works. I have been saying for ten years that our understanding of HOW electricity works is FUNDAMENTALLY incorrect, and this is just another example of how and why. If there is interest in going down this road, I have a basic prototype I am willing to share. After that it is up to you. I have other irons in the fire, but I BELIEVE this road is well worth traveling.



Dave

[wantomake]

If

If it's possible, and I'm guessing you know how, then it would change our technology. A coil that can hold a charge like a capacitor would power a motor for long durations. From the Lockridge device I tried to build such with a trifilar coil wrapped with capacitor layers. Of course the results weren't any help.

But my hand is up. I would be very interested as I still have the motor part of my Lockridge build.

wantomake

[Sawt2]

Can you get a gain from an inductive spike?
Can you get a gain from a transient spike?
Can you get a gain from the change in flux from a magnetic field if you do NOT "pay" for the change?
Can electrical energy be trapped or stored in a coil?


In other words, if YOU charge a coil with electricity, can you set it on the shelf, and then go back days or YEARS later and harvest that electricity from the coil to do work, like lighting up a lightbulb?
If you know how to do that, I believe you MIGHT be on the right right path to using electrical energy to create MORE energy.

I would like to hear thoughts on this. Can this be done? Can YOU do it, and if so, how?

Let's hear it.

P.S. If I didn't think it could be done, I wouldn't be wasting your time, but wanted to here the pros AND cons to see what people think and what is limiting our understanding of how electricity works. I have been saying for ten years that our understanding of HOW electricity works is FUNDAMENTALLY incorrect, and this is just another example of how and why. If there is interest in going down this road, I have a basic prototype I am willing to share. After that it is up to you. I have other irons in the fire, but I BELIEVE this road is well worth traveling.



Dave

I don't know how to do it but I sure would like to.
Not sure if it is the same idea you've come up with, however, i do remember seeing a video of a guy who made a claim, he had a U shaped core with a coil on it, he had a metal bar across the ends. Claimed it hung in his garage for two years and when he took the bar off the coil, lit up an led for a short time.

[ricards]

there is one I can think of..

Leedskalnin PMH...

are you going to make it chase its own tail?.

[mbrownn]

A very thought provoking set of questions.

Can you get a gain from an inductive spike?

Of course you have to do some work to create a spike and the return is less than what you did to create it under ohms law. The thing is, both the work you put in and the return spike both create magnetism which can do work. Now the question is this. Is the energy in the work done by the magnetic field more than or less than the initial work put in?
If you make the magnetism do work does that reduce the power of the return spike?
Is the work done by magnetism and the return spike more than the power you put in? I believe it is.

Using maths it would suggest that the energy available in the magnetism of the input and return spike is double the input less what is lost to ohms law, but the moment we start making that magnetism do work our return spike reduces. This may be a disappointment but the reduction does not appear to be proportional. Why is this? because the magnetism is at 90 degrees to the current doing the work. I figure that the power available is the line (Hypotenuse) going between the input and the work done. Im not very good at explaining it but its like reactive power being added tangentially to the input power.

Can you get a gain from a transient spike?
This is interesting because no spike is truly transient, so the answer must be yes. How much? I dont think there is a lot to use directly but there may be benefits in translating them through a battery.

Can you get a gain from the change in flux from a magnetic field if you do NOT "pay" for the change?
Yes. I assume this relates to the collapse of the field and your first question.

Can electrical energy be trapped or stored in a coil?
I dont think so, I believe a coil to be a translation device that takes one form of energy and turns it into another.

The lockridge device may be an interesting model on which to test these points.
By passing a current through the coils a magnetic force rotates the armature. The moment the current is cut off the coils provide a spike which if given a path, allows current to continue flowing in the same direction. This current also provides a magnetic field and continues to rotate the armature. 2 for one less ohms law.
This current flow can also be collected in a capacitor. 3 for one less ohms law.
But is the energy in parts 1, 2 and 3 real? yes. The initial current did work so the inductive kickback current must be new and not stored energy in a conventional sense.

The initial current after it has passed through the coils can be stored in a capacitor or battery. The energy in it is equal to the input less ohms law.

As the coil has done work the inductance changes so the output from the inductive kickback is not what you would expect from a free coil doing no work, however; current does flow and a magnetic field is created which also does work and this second current can also be stored in a battery or capacitor.

If you use a capacitor to store energy, half the energy is lost due to efficiency. Much better to use a battery or use the current directly but that isnt always possible.

If our motor is 40% efficient at producing mechanical work, and we gain 30% from the inductive kickback we end up with a 70% efficient motor. This is exactly what happens when using a Universal motor on PWM provided the frequency is correct and the duration of the pulse is less than 60% I think this proves point 1.

The energy that passed through the motor and is stored in a capacitor can be anywhere from 30 to 70% of the input. If the mechanical efficiency is 70% then it should be impossible to get more than 30% in the capacitor.

Inductive kickback alone produces 15 to 17% which allowing for capacitor efficiency is 30 to 34% which when added to the mechanical is 100% so where has ohms law gone? We do get heat so ohms law is still there and we are over 100%.

I could go on but there is a lot to think about there.

Hope this gets you thinking

[ewizard]

Very Interesting ! Thanks for sharing this discovery Turion

[Aaron]

PMH history

Bedini discovered long ago that in the torroidal cores that were charged kept a perpetual magnetic current in circulation even after the electricity was no longer applied. It's all internal so you can't meter from the outside and you won't know it is there unless the torridal core is cut in half to see that the two halves stick together.

Dave, your suggested experiment has been done before but without the recovery coil going to a load but the keeper can stick over and over. I like your ideas. The reason why that I was turned on to was different than yours but in any case, what you are claiming about what it does is true.

The world's first PMH was actually a single coil and went by a different name and was invented decades before Leedskalnin was even born. Leedskalnin often took credit for many things that he simply learned in very common book on magnetism at the time and early on, every scholar at Princeton in the electrical sciences was well-aware of the "PMH". Leedskalnin fans hate hearing that, but it's the truth. I'm not a fan of Einstein, but he did say that the secret to his creativity was to hide his sources and that is exactly what Leedskalnin did.

It was invented by a contemporary of Faraday who independently discovered the "Law of Electromagnetic Induction" a year apart. It's something I was going to write up for a blog post sometime soon with copies of the first references ever that most people have never heard of.

It can also be done without coils.

My speculation is that the TPU, if valid, is there is a resonant component similar to what has been connected to Hans Coler's device. Yes, I know the TPU has resonance claims but resonating what? Anyway, here is a more serious look at the Hans Coler device by Dr. Thorsten Ludwig. Hans Coler device was a permanent magnet device that constantly outputted electricity to power loads and that was even verified by British Intelligence after the war.

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S187538921202...1a0ba8d0955904

And of further interest to me in relation to the above is that the goal of the QEG is about synchronizing 3 resonances, which includes that actual resonance of the magnetic core material. If they accomplish that, it wouldn't be surprising if they got the results that Ronald Brandt claimed.

If all of this is understood enough, I think it can be used to exploit the circulating magnetic current in the PMH without destroying that magnetic current (polarized aether in circulation) similar to what Dave is suggesting. I think it has really interesting possibilities.

[BroMikey]

Early Free Energy

This is really great Aaron, but who can fully wrap their heads around this?



https://ac.els-cdn.com/S187538921202...514a56de4d0f29


The "Stromerzeuger" consists of an arrangement of magnets, flat coils, and copper plates, with a
primary circuit energized by a small battery. Coler and von Unruh made up a slightly larger model with
an output of 70 watts. This was demonstrated to Dr. F. Modersohn, who obtained from Prof. Schumann
and Prof. Kloss confirmation of their tests in 1926. The device was seen by the professors Schumann
(Munich), Bragstad (Trondheim) and Knudsen (Copenhagen). Reports by Prof. Kloss (Technical
University of Berlin) and Prof. Schumann (Technical University of Munich) are reliable evidence that the
device was real and worked. Prof. Schumann is still widely known for the discovery of the Schumann
Resonances in the earth atmosphere. Coler then in 1937 built a larger version with an output of six
kilowatts.

[ewizard]

I started thinking a bit more about how this could work and while it may be far fetched (I intend to give some things a try with this info) I could see the possibility of two of these setups back to back with 4 coils (as often the TPU diagrams have 4 separate coils wound on a core) and those 2 inner coils as seen in the TPU videos being the bifilar toroid load coils which may then feed power back to the other coils as Turion explained. Probably fuzzy logic on my part but I'm thinking that 2 of these setups tied together in some way may be a basis of the TPU.

[mbrownn]

I had totally forgot about the keeper effect, Nice one

[Aaron]

Pmh

Aaron,
That's great info about the PMH. Daniel McFarland Cook and others have the same figure 8 coil connections on their free energy device patents, so the basic idea has been around in some form for a really long time. I have personally seen the same configuration in at least three different write-ups or patents of "free energy" devices.

Leedskalnin was the first I saw using the "U" shaped bar with the keeper across the end, but the fact that others before him experimented with it doesn't surprise me.

For my money, the fact that you can re-use the circulating electrical field to continue to do work makes this well worth investigating. Right now I pay for switching costs from an outside source, but something like Bedini's two coil switch would make switching costs free, or you could use some of the output from the power coil to pay for switching, especially with a large system that has some serious output.

From my research, the Transient spike comes at the MOMENT THE CONNECTION IS MADE IN THE SWITCH (if the frequency is correct) and the inductive spike comes when the switch disconnects. Since BOTH collapse back into the "Loop", every time the switch is connected and disconnected (at the correct frequency for the coil) the electrical energy in the loop increases, and it is a % of the previous amount, so the growth is exponential. You are only limited by what the coil and attached capacitors can hold, which limits the output to the load. I bought a few (800) capacitors, and intend to get around to trying some experiments with this some day, because all my results so far have been positive. The problem is, I already have OTHER things I know work, and all my spare time is spent on THAT, so I have no time for things that may or may not ever achieve the output of what I am currently working on.

I brought this here because I have tried it. I know it works, and someone with the right junk lying around their shop might decide to see what they can do with it. There are many ways to skin this cat.

Dave

I totally forgot about Cook - posted about him here for anyone that wants the patent, etc. Cook's Perpetual Electrical Generator - A & P Electronic Media

Also wish I had enough time to do these experiments. I did recently experiment with a PMH that didn't require a coil and it works. It was released to the public in the past. If the person who shared it with me before is ok with it, I'll post it maybe with the PMH history post I want to do.

Hope to see something come out of all of this. At least is is fairly low budget and low tech so most people can participate.

[Duncan]

The PMH sounds and looks simple however the very fact that it works requires a fundamental change in electric theory. The only answer a lecturer can offer to the action of the PMH is 'residual magnetism'
there is a problem with that however - EL tells us to use 'soft Iron' alas thats not readily available now as it was in Ed's time. (a link from an old anchor chain is a good source) the reason is pretty simple Iron is magnetically 'soft' It would make for instance a good electro-magnet, steel however tends to stay magnetized and so would make a good permanent magnet.
each have their place in the scheme of things. and it all comes down to something called permeability and the B/H curve (Tesla gets recognition here bless him - B = Webers per square meter and the SI unit is the TESLA. 'T' ( used to be Gauss I seem to remember what happened to his claim to fame!)

https://nationalmaglab.org/education...riedrich-gauss



anyway here is - the B/H curve explained

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws...ysteresis.html

you can see soft and hard -- excuse the slight pun but it's not very hard to understand is it?
And then you hit a huge anomaly - In soft Iron (for instance) the flux stays locked in the core ! it doesn't escape and ' cut coils with lines of force' In a nut shell - It doesn't leave that core , It can't . students of course parrot this even though it simply can't be!
now this is not just IMHO you understand its expanded on here by EPD and bless his tortured soul Chris Carson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw

At this point in time its pretty much whats done is done , But I point out neither of these dedicated researchers left this demonstration unscathed. And so suggest you watch this again and again until the truth they are trying so very hard to project becomes undeniable.
The like of this transmission is not likley to be repeated.
So a classically trained EE and I have to kick my efforts over the years into the long grass ? -- so be it ! however its not quite right ! and the trick IMHO is to force what actually happens with what current theory indicates should happen to mesh. The oppositely wound coils on EL's PMH could be magnetically likened to Tesla's bi - filar coil on one core, after all they are effectively doing the same thing!
There are so many permutations to coil winding its a life's study all by itself as is the caduceus coil
caduceus3
with its claim to be resonant at all frequencies and anti gravitational effects.
A step to far perhaps ? In theory two identical coils wound on the same core with polarities reversed should exactly cancel each other with a net resultant force of zero - well folks it doesn't happen does it ?
I wound one of these things full size to EL's plan some 25 years ago . I've just dragged it's dusty arse out from under an old work bench



you'll see back then I put tap's into my winding at various points and I'll explain why in a moment.
but first a logical step , If ELs PMH doesn't exactly cancel what about its cousin the permanent magnet ? would identical magnets cancel ? I did this experiment with identical magnets (but cruder than this example) which I invite you to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5q47JJJAww

Just as an aside a good understanding of this opens the door to understanding Hatem and all of the magnetic engine clones.
however what I wished to know was - at what point would the coils actually balance and behave as classic theory says they should ? The answer (subject to duplication of course) 1:1.6 .(more or less) which is also the relationship of the longitudinal wave to the transverse wave. also as an aside -
The patterns these holders and magnetic wheels can produce in water is amazing



So just an opinion you understand but I elect to consider that with this device you are considering a very different sort of energy altogether. an omni directional energy rather as Aaron describes in his book 'The quantum Key' I would suggest that all energy really originates from this source. power stations may be incidental.
The PMH itself can probably be made to oscillate by simply putting the third coil David suggests in his drawing on a core at 90 deg to the PMH as shown with a permanent magnet here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_2G28531sI

There for consideration are the questions David ponders answered can a coil store energy over time ?
yes the PMH can do it for years . Here is friend of this forum Russ showing the PMH doing exactly that even after after two years. Mine worked after 15 years (at least)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=832qz3s1M-s

can the PMH be made dynamic ? Certainly to make a PMH oscillator should have interesting effects.
- might even try that myself !
surly the phenomenal work of Art Porter culminating in his static gap machine mirrors this effect ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50VaM45U-TM

Incidentally a common or garden coil does store energy hence a crystal set tank circuit can work

energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 CV^2 energy stored in a inductor =1/2 LI^2 derived for you here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVkyIt3B7xE

It never fails to surprise me that despite the blatantly obvious examples being exotic and very different from any norm folks still muck about searching for volts and amps and still try to use oscilloscopes and the like . Kindest regards Duncan

[wayne.ct]

Soft Magnetic Iron Powder 99.4 % pure iron

Search for this on ebay, etc. Mold it into whatever shape you want or need. Use a binder of your choice, epoxy, plastic, common glue, etc. Have fun!

[wayne.ct]

Resistance and Hysteresis Losses

The reason the PMH works so well is because the "hysteresis" losses are negligible. These losses are like heat losses in a resistor. You probably want to focus your experiments at some particular frequency or periodicity, a.k.a. resonant frequency. For low frequency experiments you want ..., for higher frequency effects you may want to ..., and so on. Also know that the "magnetic particles" are extremely fast and fluid. Much faster than c, in my view, and much smaller than electrons. This, also, is my opinion. Very few traditional thinkers are able to grasp this idea. They are stuck in their thinking.

[Duncan]

agreed -Wayne in this context the area under the curve = loss . might I respectfully suggest a brief research of Robert Adams, particularly core material and magnetic reaction time .
also as regards TPU research the mans occupation - (speakers and Hi Fi sound) core material (was I suggest) 'special ' and 'borrowed' ergo its not going to be replicated with welding rods or old nails (I did try , ever the optomist ) faster than C -- oh dear join me on the naughty step ! and welcome! kindest regards Duncan