The bistander thread

[altrez]

Hi Altrez,
Have you continued with these tests? I am interested. I was hoping to see some response from Turion after all it was his procedure. He never did answer if he had run the test and had results. I'll be around and work with you if want.
Regards,
bi

Hello Bistander,

I am gearing up for the secound round of test's, I have added the new logging watt meter and also I am going to log the volts and amps with my fluke connect meters. I will post the setup soon, I just want to make sure I have everything in place just like was posted. Also thank you for the offer of help!

-Altrez

[bistander]

This morning I ran a 30 minute test of charging the battery. My charger charges at a rate of around .250mA AC per hour. I think this is = to around 2.8A DC going into the battery? On the next test I will put an amp meter on the charger's DC side to be sure.



At the start of the 30 minute charge cycle these where the readings from the battery:

BK601
100%
VO13.32v
VL12.80v
037 mohm
Fluke Voltage Test: 13.33v

After a 30 minute rest:

BK601
100%
VO13.66v
VL12.87v
056 mohm
Fluke Voltage Test: 13.63v

-Altrez

Hi Altrez,
Have you continued with these tests? I am interested. I was hoping to see some response from Turion after all it was his procedure. He never did answer if he had run the test and had results. I'll be around and work with you if want.
Regards,
bi

[bistander]

...
Here's a video of one of the EARLIER versions of the generator. This was filmed a YEAR earlier in 2013. The coil mounts in this version didn't work at all. As you can see, the magnetic lock is pretty strong. You know, that thing that bistander says "makes no difference" when the rotor is at speed. As you will notice, the guy in the video has no idea how to connect a motor to this machine. He learned. I have learned a lot. That's why there are so many versions of the generator. It didn't need three rotors. It only needed one. Same output, lower cost. Lots of changers over the seven years I worked on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J994dnYMKFA

In this video I demonstrate that putting a coil under load does not slow the machine down. In fact it speeds the machine up.
I show that one coil outputs 130 volts at at .45 amp, or 58 watts, so even with the lighter weight rotor that only had HALF the magnets on it, and the INFERIOR coils, the machine, with 12 coils, was capable of outputting 842 watts. What would STOP it from doing that? Lenz? Nah, I just showed Lenz is outrun by this machine. Magnetic drag like in the second video? Nah, Greyland demonstrated spinning the rotor on the CURRENT machine with one finger with 12 coils in place.

You saw in a prior video I used 24 volts at 13 amps to run the CURRENT machine with 12 coils in place. So that would cost me less than 400 watts.Now I have bigger coils and more magnets on the rotor.

The only question is, how much MORE than those old coils do the new ones put out. The answer is they output about 156 watts. But there are TWICE as many magnets on the rotor, the RPM is a little higher, there is 600 more feet of wire on the coil, and the windings are much tighter.

If you still cannot see that all this is possible, I feel bad for you.

Last edited by Turion; Yesterday, 03:23 AM.

Yesterday Turion added the above to his previous post with an edit. Here a comment after a quick read and watch of the linked video.

..
In this video I demonstrate that putting a coil under load does not slow the machine down. In fact it speeds the machine up.
I show that one coil outputs....

What? I'm sorry. I don't see it. I watched the video and the machine doesn't even turn on its own power, just when he manually moves the rotor. Speeds up? Show coil output? Where?

..
You saw in a prior video I used 24 volts at 13 amps to run the CURRENT machine with 12 coils in place. ...

That prior video is not one of the four he has just recently linked in the past few days. Perhaps he could supply the proper link.

Regards,
bi

edit erased

[bistander]

Hello all,
I've got some time this afternoon so I'll expand on my opinions about Turion's posts which I quoted above.

...

https://youtu.be/0iHy2w0rK6M

Here is a video showing that it cost 7.7 amps to run the machine at FAR more than the 2800 RPM on 36 volts. That’s 277 watts. In the video above, I show the output of a coil at 2/3 that speed as over 50 watts. I also show when you UNLOAD a coil EXACTLY like that coil, the machine slows down. If you put 12 of them on the machine, would you not get 12 times the output? Would 12x 50 NOT equal 600? Would that NOT be more out than in, even with those old coils? Lenz is outrun as the video in the post above CLEARLY shows. ...

Here is the link to the video to which he refers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWY3MaTHeA&t=5s

To me, that video does not "CLEARLY show" much at all. Looking hard at it, towards the end he reads 2779 RPM (handheld tach) with a coil shorted and then 2741 RPM after he un-shorts it (open circuit on coil output leads). So he says that the motor (generator) sped up when the coil was loaded. It appears to run 38 RPM faster when the coil is shorted versus when the coil is unloaded. Now I've never said that his multifilar coils did not, as he puts it, "speed-up under load". So, his video does show that.

What I have continually said from the beginning is that it makes no difference to the loaded performance. Turion's video test does not in any way demonstrate any advantage that coil of his has in regard to generator output power or efficiency compared to a standard wound coil.

Here is a video done by a fellow named Jonathan comparing a bifilar wound coil to a conventional (standard) winding. Note how clearly this video shows results. He tabulates his results showing inputs and outputs measured simultaneously for each case. Take a look.

https://youtu.be/kfRxsC9yumQ

Here are Jonathan's results as a screenshot for our convenience.

http://www.energeticforum.com/filedata/fetch?id=499215

Using numbers from Jonathan's summary:
Bifilar coil 1674 RPM, 437W input, open circuit.
Bifilar coil 1734 RPM, 272W input, short circuit.
Conclusion: it does speed up under load.

Bifilar coil 10W output, 280W input.
Standard coil 10W output, 280W input.
All conditions are basically the same.
Conclusion: no advantage indicated between bifilar coil and standard coil when operating at rated load.

He also shows case of open circuit vs short circuit for standard coil.
Open circuit: 268W input, 1732 RPM.
Short circuit: 269W input, 1731 RPM.
Conclusion: basically the same. Furthermore, one can postulate that the reason the motor generator assembly speeds up when the bifilar coil is shorted (and reduces input power) whereas it does not when using the standard coil is because the bifilar coil causes additional power loss when unloaded compared to the standard coil. The standard coil requires slightly less power at no load (open circuit). The bifilar coil requires 165W more at no load. The reduced RPM is consistent with increased load for the PM motor.

So the "speed-up under load" is not indicative of improved performance at load, but rather detremental effects at no-load. How can the be? At no-load, which means open circuit at the coil output leads, supposedly there is zero current in the coil. The core is the same, physically, no-load vs short circuit. The friction and aero drag losses are close to being the same. What could cause more losses when the coil is open circuit?

Several theories have been posted. None of which I am aware have proof. And besides, it really doesn't matter with regards to generator output. I can elaborate on my opinion later about the reasons bifilar coil open circuit loss is high. For now, we have seen a very well presented video test showing no advantage at load for a bifilar coil versus a standard coil.

Turion will disagree as he always does whenever someone dares to replicate his work or actually test his premises, theories or methods. He says Jonathan didn't use the same gauge wire, or was bifilar instead of multifilar, or was a different number of magnets. I agree, it was not exactly the same as Turion's set-up. Big deal. It demonstrated the "trend". Why would Turion's set-up be much different? Why has Turion never shown input and output power simultaneously? Why has Turion never shown comparative test between his coil and a standard coil? Why should anyone care what the coil does at no-load so why compare his coil to no-load and then project that to loaded performance, something he has never bothered to test? Turion is just simply amazed that he can magically make his contraption "speed-up under load" so he attributes it to free energy and then extrapolates to 1800 watts of real power output for less than 300 watts input.

Maybe some more on this later.
Be careful out there.
bi

[bistander]

... but according to bi, doesn't make ANY difference how many magnets you have. Once you are "up to speed" there is no effect.

It's really unclear to what exactly Turion is referring. I don't recall stating that the number of poles "doesn't make ANY difference". Obviously the pole count is a fundamental design parameter.

As to "Once you are "up to speed" there is no effect.", Turion is obviously referring to my position that cogging is insignificant at rated speed in regards to power output and efficiency.

Turion calls it "magnetic neutralization". But from his description, it is cogging. Cogging is a well known and understood behavior in motors and generators. Numerous articles and definitions are easily located using Google, or text books in your library. There is seldom found disagreements on what it is and what causes it. There are numerous approaches to deal with it where mitigation is needed. Most often mitigation is required in low speed motors used for position control.

Cogging in permanent magnet (PM) generators (and motors) is due to the attraction of the magnets to the core steel. Air core machines experience no cogging. When the magnet approaches a steel member, an attractive force aids the torque causing the rotation. When the magnet departs from the steel member, that attractive force opposes the torque causing the rotation. This results in aiding and hindering each passage of a magnet near the steel core. The aiding and hindering forces are equal and opposite with regards to rotation direction. The net effect is the summation of all the magnets and core protrusions.

The design and construction of Turion's generator topology results in a substantial attractive force as all the magnetic poles align with cores simultaneously. Most commercial machines have an odd number of armature teeth (or coil cores on Turion's generator) with the even number of poles (magnets, pole pairs, N & S) to avoid high magnitude cogging torque which includes static breakaway. I can see where this is a problem with Turion's design. I never said it wasn't. But I said it was not a problem at rated speed where cogging is merely ripple torque superimposed on the rated torque at load. And that is where generators work. Turn them on once and use the power for years without having to deal with low speed cogging or acceleration. At high speed where the generator operates, cogging is little more than nuisance noise and a very minor loss. Often cogging isn't noticable at higher RPM because rotor inertia filters it.

Turion uses a marginally rated motor to drive his generator. It was incapable of dealing with the cogging torque. So he devised a method to mitigate it which he calls magnetic neutralization. This involved the addition of an extra magnet on the rotor placed out of the rotational path of the main pole magnets and coil cores. Then a magnet is located on the stator for each of the neutralizing rotor magnets strategically placed such that the neutralizing magnets align with each other precisely when the main pole magnets align with the coil cores. The polarity and proximity of the neutralizing magnets to each other result in a repulsive force equal and opposite to the attractive force between the main pole magnets and coil cores. Repulsive force equals attractive force results in no force (or no cogging). Very noticeable at static start and low speed. He solved his problem. I never said he didn't.

What I said and still say is that all that is irrelevant at rated speed and load. Yes, I realize that you need the start the generator from standstill once in a blue moon and it will help there. But when the machine is running as a generator, that magnetic neutralization makes essentially no difference because cogging is irrelevant to the generator operation.

When you investigate cogging you will quickly learn that it only involves the magnets and the steel. It has nothing to do with the coils. And the coils are the wires or the windings, or the copper. Turion often doesn't differentiate the core from the coil. This adds to confusion. But the coils and the core(s) are separate elements of the machine. And cogging has nothing to do with the coils.

You can analyze Turion's test videos and statements and see, even with his magnetic neutralization, his drive motor loads up as speed increases. The magnetic neutralization has no effect on the magnetic flux in the cores because this core flux comes from the main pole magnets. And that flux in the core steel changes magnitude and direction as the magnets pass by during rotation. That changing flux is what induces voltage when a coil is present. But regardless of the coil, the changing flux in the steel causes Eddy current and hysteresis losses, often lumped together and called core loss. These losses are proportional to frequency (RPM). At very low speed when just starting (when cogging is most notable) core loss is negligible. At generator operation speed, core loss can be substantial. Turion's magnetic neutralization has essentially no affect on core loss except possibly to add some Eddy current loss from the neutralization magnets which will experience changing flux at high frequency when at operational speed. Those Eddy currents manifest in the metallic coating on the rare earth magnets. I wonder if heat would be a problem on those magnets when run for long periods.

That got pretty long. Maybe some more later.
bi

[Turion]

How about you put your money where your mouth is and make the bet? You won’t, because you are wrong and you know it. You can dance around all you want but I have shown, just as I SAID, all the information needed to make a decision about whether or not this generator is real. I NEVER saiid I have shown total output of the machine and total input at the same time. Never. I didn’t show total output ON PURPOSE.

it isn’t my fault you can’t look at the output of one coil on the machine and multiply by 12. Why would the output be ANY LESS than 12 times what it is for one coil when there are 12 coils on the machine?

Only Lenz or magnetic drag would affect the RPM and amp draw of the system and I just posted those videos proving that Lenz can be outrun and I have other videos that show this machine running with six coils in place with and WITHOUT magnetic drag that prove you know less than nothing. But you go ahead with your babble bi. We all know you wouldn’t put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Anyone who looks at the videos I posted and reads what I have said knows what you are. The FACTS are in the videos. Cost to run the machine. Output of coils. Cost of Lenz. How to outrun it. Cost of magnetic drag and how to neutralize it. You go ahead and have your say now. I’m done with you. If you ever want to grow a spine and make that bet, you have my email address. But you won’t. Just keep talking. Nobody is listening anyway.

[bistander]

Bro,
January of 2014 is when I made the first video of an early version of the generator. I just watched Matt's ORIGINAL VBIDEO and it is from December 8, 2014, so that's when I started on this. I have changed wire size since then, added another SIX magnets to the rotor, and increased the THICKNESS of the magnets by x 3 the RPM is increased just a bit. I also added another 400 FEET of wire to the coils. All those changes add up to the output of the CURRENT generator coils. Since each additional coil causes NO INTERACTION with the motor, which means NO increased amp draw to get an output, NO interaction with the magnets on the rotor due to magnetic neutralization, and just plain INCREASED OUTPUT POWER, it is ALL about the math, despite what bystander said. This video shows that the coil under load does NOT cause the motor to slow down. It shows that SAME coil providing 130 volts AC at .54 amps.

You pay to turn the rotor with however many magnets you put on it. THAT IS ALL YOU PAY FOR. (Almost!) In my case that is 24 volts at about 13 amps or about 312 watts. There IS a cost, no matter how perfectly I build this machine to put all 12 coils in place. but it is still less than 400 watts to run it, which is as I claimed. The coils put out what they put out depending on how you wind them, the magnet thickness, number of magnets and rpm of the rotor. The machine in the video could BARELY turn the rotor with TWO coils in place since it did NOT have magnetic neutralization in place. It put out around 140 watts, so was not great, but it SHOWED me that I could get the output I was looking for. It only took about three more years to figure out the magnetic neutralization and incorporate it into future designs. Anyway, here it is. This video was made for MATT, not you guys. He already knew what it took to turn the motor. 40 watts with only TWO magnets on the rotor. but according to bi, doesn't make ANY difference how many magnets you have. Once you are "up to speed" there is no effect. But then he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about since he has never built a machine. But you guys keep listening to him. I'm sure he has lots of free energy devices he will share with you. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWY3MaTHeA&t=5s

Matt's original machine put out about 70 watts and ran on 40 watts. The one in this video put out 140 watts, but I don't remember what it cost to run. The idea was to run the motor between the output of the generator and the battery. This keeping the battery charged. The output of a couple coils did that fairly easily as I remember, once the voltage was stepped down and rectified. We knew we had it then. Still do.

I looked for this video, and it wasn't on meh YouTube channel, which kind of freaked me out. But then I remembered I have an old YouTube chan el under the "Turion" name that has a whole bunch of videos, and it was there. All those videos were marked "Private" and I am in the process of converting them to 'Unlisted". If there are any of the generator, and I know there are a BUNCH, that are worth watching, I will post the links here. Some are of really OLD versions of the generator, but not as old as this one.

Greyland is kind of down and out right now, recovering from the stroke he had. Still in therapy. My big generator is at his place several hours away. So showing it is not in the cards as we are staying home during this pandemic. My x has tested positive so it has hit close to home.

I have machines here, but getting one back together has proved difficult. I don’t have a “safe” rotor with no magnets sticking out, so until I solve that problem I am not even trying to get one running. With no machinist to make sure that holes drilled align things perfectly, it is proving to be very challenging. When things hit things at high speed it is not pretty. I survived ONE of those incidents and have no desire to risk another just to prove a point when I already have working prototypes of things with NO moving parts that can be scaled up. Risking an eye to show an obsolete generation device is just not worth it to me.

https://youtu.be/0iHy2w0rK6M

Here is a video showing that it cost 7.7 amps to run the machine at FAR more than the 2800 RPM on 36 volts. That’s 277 watts. In the video above, I show the output of a coil at 2/3 that speed as over 50 watts. I also show when you UNLOAD a coil EXACTLY like that coil, the machine slows down. If you put 12 of them on the machine, would you not get 12 times the output? Would 12x 50 NOT equal 600? Would that NOT be more out than in, even with those old coils? Lenz is outrun as the video in the post above CLEARLY shows.

So what would prevent you from doing EXACTLY that? I’ll tell you. Magnetic drag. You know, that thing bistander says makes “no difference”. Every coil you add increases the mass of core material you must move your rotor past. I tried bigger motors. Burnt them up. I tried kick starting the machine by firing all the coils at once as motor coils. That had lots of potential, and I was moving in that direction until I saw the patent on magnetic neutralization.

The ability to outrun Lenz and the ability to neutralize what I call “magnetic drag” are the two keys to a machine that does what you want it to.

https://youtu.be/NUvZjPa08fw


In this video I show that adding six coils to the machine increased the amp draw from 7 amps to over 16. That’s more than DOUBLE. But according to bistander, it “makes no difference”. Imagine what happens when you add six MORE coils. According to bi, that won’t make any difference either. Here’s what really happens despite what bistander says. The amp draw rises above the rated amp draw for the motor, and it burns it up. With magnetic neutralization in place the amp draw stays down around 12-13 amps. I can also tell you that as you add more coils, the new one increases the motor amp draw MORE than the previous one did and when you are above about four coils that difference starts to get interesting.

Now there is another effect magnetic drag has besides increasing the amp draw. You can see in the two videos that the RPM of the rotor went down considerably when more coils were added. What do you think THAT does to generator coil output? Do you believe as bistander does that THAT makes no difference too? Do you REALLY?

How do I KNOW all this stuff? Because I actually BUILD things. I do not sit on my butt like bistander, assuming my textbook learning is the golden rule. He doesn’t know SQUAT about these machines because he doesn’t build anything. He opens his mouth and criticizes the work of others that he knows NOTHING about. But go ahead and listen to him instead of learning for yourselves. You get what you deserve. Yes, I have made a great number of mistakes. Some of them have made me appear not to know much, but SOME of them have led to amazing discoveries. I’m happy with exactly where I am and what I know.


Now I have presented FACTS. It’s true I haven’t shown input and output of the machine. It may well be a while before that happens and it may NEVER happen. But all the FACTS and data you need are in what I have shown. I have done everything I can to make this easy for the next guy. What you do with it is up to you. I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for what you do. I have done what I am capable of doing to move this project forward. Despite what you may think, I have an actual life with other responsibilities.

I am moving on from this forum. Many of you have my email. dvd.bowling@gmail.com. I will be happy to answer questions but I am done arguing with idiots.

Hello all,
Turion has just posted these two posts on a thread I don't particularly like to patronize, so I am quoting and posting on this thread. He says he's "moving on from this forum", so by quoting his post here it will preserve them in tact and give me ample time to reply. He mentioned me a number of times and as usual mixes up what I have claimed.

It's interesting that Turion admits "It’s true I haven’t shown input and output of the machine. It may well be a while before that happens and it may NEVER happen." That is what I've said all a long. He has never proved his claim of 1800 watts of real power output while using less than 300 watts of input. He repeatedly claimed he had. Here he admitted he never did. And he never will. Because he can not. What he claimed as proof is just a collage of irrelevant phenomena, bad assumptions and BS.

I'll return with a post shortly explaining how he misinterprets or misrepresents my explanation of his "magnetic neutralization".

Turion states that I have never built anything. He doesn't know. I've shown some of my "handy work" but it is irrelevant. I don't want readers to simply believe me because of claimed accomplishments or credentials. I want readers to consider what I say and through logic, research, education and experience decide for themselves what is truth.

Regards,
bi

[altrez]

This morning I ran a 30 minute test of charging the battery. My charger charges at a rate of around .250mA AC per hour. I think this is = to around 2.8A DC going into the battery? On the next test I will put an amp meter on the charger's DC side to be sure.



At the start of the 30 minute charge cycle these where the readings from the battery:

BK601
100%
VO13.32v
VL12.80v
037 mohm
Fluke Voltage Test: 13.33v

After a 30 minute rest:

BK601
100%
VO13.66v
VL12.87v
056 mohm
Fluke Voltage Test: 13.63v

-Altrez

[bistander]

I got three of these from eBay. I have not had a chance to take them apart or test them.
<snip>
I lost my rc watt meters so I just ordered two more. I also ordered one of these.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-Altrez

Cool. Nice looking battery.
I noticed those newer wattmeters that use the pass-thru current sensor. Must be a Hall sensor for the DC units. They also have AC units using current transformers. Nice alternative to the shunt (current viewing resistor).
bi

[altrez]

I got three of these from eBay. I have not had a chance to take them apart or test them.




I lost my rc watt meters so I just ordered two more. I also ordered one of these.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-Altrez

[altrez]

Hi Altrez,
I'm happy to have you post on this thread. Interesting instrument you show. Let us know how it works. I thought you had one or two of these type.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QNKF79J..._3kzhFbWKDDSD0
They seem to work well to give the accumulated Wh or Ah for a test.
Did you ever get the bigger Lithium battery?
Regards,
bi

Hi bistander, I do have a few of the watt meters you posted. I can rig one up on the next test. I did get the bigger Lithium battery's and at the price I paid they are a good value, let me get a few pics.

-Altrez

[bistander]

I picked up this to log the watt hours.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Looks like it will give me the option to export to excel as well.

-Altrez

Hi Altrez,
I'm happy to have you post on this thread. Interesting instrument you show. Let us know how it works. I thought you had one or two of these type.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QNKF79J..._3kzhFbWKDDSD0
They seem to work well to give the accumulated Wh or Ah for a test.
Did you ever get the bigger Lithium battery?
Regards,
bi

[altrez]

I picked up this to log the watt hours.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Looks like it will give me the option to export to excel as well.

-Altrez

[altrez]

Altrez,
it looks like you only use ~5 watt-hours for the test. I suggest using a DC wattmeter which displays watt-hours between the charger and battery as well as the killawatt meter on the AC outlet. This will give you an efficiency of your charger as well as energies required to recharge the battery.

Lithium cells are noted for being virtually 100% "charge" efficient, meaning Ampere-hours in equal Ampere-hours out. The battery's charge-discharge energy efficiency then is equal to (V-I'*R)/(V+I"*R)*100%, where V= open circuit battery voltage, I'= discharge current, and I"= charge current. This assumes constant current discharge (I') and constant current charge (I").
Nice tests. Thanks for sharing.
bi

Hello bistander,

Thank you for calculating the watt hours. I am going to order a logging watt meter and run the test again. Sorry for hijacking your thread!

-Altrez

[bistander]

Just for fun, you might put a kilowatt meter between your battery charger and the wall when you charge your battery. It will give you an idea of how much energy it actually takes to charge that battery back to where you started compared to what you got out of it.

Altrez,
it looks like you only use ~5 watt-hours for the test. I suggest using a DC wattmeter which displays watt-hours between the charger and battery as well as the killawatt meter on the AC outlet. This will give you an efficiency of your charger as well as energies required to recharge the battery.

Lithium cells are noted for being virtually 100% "charge" efficient, meaning Ampere-hours in equal Ampere-hours out. The battery's charge-discharge energy efficiency then is equal to (V-I'*R)/(V+I"*R)*100%, where V= open circuit battery voltage, I'= discharge current, and I"= charge current. This assumes constant current discharge (I') and constant current charge (I").
Nice tests. Thanks for sharing.
bi