The bistander thread

[bistander]

On the other hand our generators will be running along and we plug in a load of 5 watts no increase takes place on the input side. Explain that will ya.

I rarely respond to this guy. But I think he infers a misconception that others also have, probably including Thane H.

He says there is a generator running. Let's say using 100 watts input and putting out 30 watts to a load. That generator is running at 30% efficiency. Now the load is increased by 5 watts to 35 watts total output and the input doesn't change; it remains at 100 watts. So does one get that new 5 watts for free? You might say that. Or look at it as 35 watts out using 100 watts input. That's 35% efficiency. So as a proportion of generator operation, each 5 watts of output costs 14.3 watts of input power. You have an argument that the extra 5 watts is free, but by no means is the generator over-unity.

Example:
Use the video of the fellow debunking Thane. His data from my earlier post (2 pages back, post #636).

Screenshot_20200624-174429.png

With the bifilar coil it uses 437 watts input for 0 watts output. He adds a 10 watt load and the input power goes to 280 watts. Does he get those 10 watts for free? Of course not. He pays 280 watts as input power to get 10 watts output power. Yep, 3.6% efficiency.

So when this poster says to explain how his generator can produce an additional 5 watt load with no increase input power, I offer that his machine was operating at such a low efficiency to start with that the change in load caused a increase in efficiency which offset the increased load. I venture to say his generator was not putting out more total power than what it used as input power. And that it never will even if he further increased load. He fooling himself thinking it would.
bi

[BroMikey]

Let's say using 100 watts input and putting out 30 watts to a load.

That generator is running at 30% efficiency.

No I clearly stated that 100 watts goes in and 85 watts of load is produced. If you have a 30% generator you could still make the test.

Start at 100 watts and BYE'S generator puts out 30 watts of load. Well not the best efficiency but hey at least you built it and you have a starting point. Now that said we will draw a 60watt load and in turn Bye's generator will require 200 watts to produce. Yes your generator is a dog but you learned that there is a ratio. The COP is 1:3 I guess I wrote that right. COP 1-.3 or just .3?

Now let's look at Dave's genhead. Dave runs a couple hundred watts to turn his rotor with coils in place ready to load up and draw power off. When Dave flips the switch on a 1000 watt light bulb (10 X 100watt bulbs) nothing happens to the input power. It doesn't go up. Now Dave throws the switch again on 100 bulbs (theoretical) for a 10,000 watt load and nothing happens to the drive input watts. COP infinity.

The only thing keeping Dave from getting 1 million watts is getting a big enough rotor with enough coils on it that have no effect on the drive input watts.

[Turion]

bi,
I already explained to you that the data from the fellow debunking Thane is faulty for a very simple reason. He is measuring the output of a speed up under load coil that is SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR UNDER LOAD, so it is NOT at its maximum output. To get it up to its maximum output as a GENERATOR COIL where the output of the speed up under load coil would be the SAME as the single filler coil, you would have to SLOW the motor, which means the INPUT to the motor is less than that required to get the SAME output from the single filler coil. But you dismiss the data because it doesn't agree with your faulty hypothesis. YOU haven't done the experiments. YOU haven't built the coils or rotors or seen what they do. YOU watch someone else's incomplete testing and assume you know everything. YOU do NOT..And by the way, how about that bet? Found a spine yet? Still searching for one? Where do all these chicken feathers come from?

[BroMikey]

QUOTE=Turion bi,
.................. you dismiss the data because it doesn't agree with your faulty hypothesis.

YOU haven't done the experiments.

YOU watch someone else's incomplete testing and assume you know everything.

YOU do NOT.

And by the way, how about that bet?

Found a spine yet?

Still searching for one?

Where do all these chicken feathers come from?

UNQUOTE FROM DAVE

[bistander]

No I clearly stated that 100 watts goes in and 85 watts of load is produced. If you have a 30% generator you could still make the test.

Start at 100 watts and BYE'S generator puts out 30 watts of load. Well not the best efficiency but hey at least you built it and you have a starting point. Now that said we will draw a 60watt load and in turn Bye's generator will require 200 watts to produce. Yes your generator is a dog but you learned that there is a ratio. The COP is 1:3 I guess I wrote that right. COP 1-.3 or just .3?

Now let's look at Dave's genhead. Dave runs a couple hundred watts to turn his rotor with coils in place ready to load up and draw power off. When Dave flips the switch on a 1000 watt light bulb (10 X 100watt bulbs) nothing happens to the input power. It doesn't go up. Now Dave throws the switch again on 100 bulbs (theoretical) for a 10,000 watt load and nothing happens to the drive input watts. COP infinity.

The only thing keeping Dave from getting 1 million watts is getting a big enough rotor with enough coils on it that have no effect on the drive input watts.

You said:

... All generators built today consume more energy than they put out. Let's take the ratio 85% + 15% . 15% losses for an 85% efficient generator is what we have on the market today. ...

So you're telling me your homebuilt generator, or Turion's, run as efficient as "what we have on the market today." Yeah, right. NOT. All this time, I've never seen an efficiency test by Turion, or anybody else on this board.

So when you said:

On the other hand our generators will be running along and we plug in a load of 5 watts no increase takes place on the input side.

Your generators are not "on the market today". So you did not clearly state the 85% efficient generator was the one seeing the 5 watt load.

Show me an efficiency test on your generator please.
bi

[bistander]

bi,
I already explained to you that the data from the fellow debunking Thane is faulty for a very simple reason. He is measuring the output of a speed up under load coil that is SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR UNDER LOAD, so it is NOT at its maximum output. To get it up to its maximum output as a GENERATOR COIL where the output of the speed up under load coil would be the SAME as the single filler coil, you would have to SLOW the motor, which means the INPUT to the motor is less than that required to get the SAME output from the single filler coil. But you dismiss the data because it doesn't agree with your faulty hypothesis. YOU haven't done the experiments. YOU haven't built the coils or rotors or seen what they do. YOU watch someone else's incomplete testing and assume you know everything. YOU do NOT..And by the way, how about that bet? Found a spine yet? Still searching for one? Where do all these chicken feathers come from?

Seems to me like you're the one dismissing data because you don't like the conclusion I draw from it. That tester wasn't replicating your stuff. But Thane's. It appeared a valid test. It is what it is. You can slow or speed a motor all you want. I don't care. It is irrelevant to your claim of OU. If you disagree, prove it demonstrating OU.
Regards,
bi

[Turion]

How about that bet, bi? Put the money where the ol’ mouth is. Talk is cheap. Chicken tracks everywhere around this place!

I don't dismiss his data. I'm sure it is accurate. It is just incomplete.

Here is the way to actually do that test to get the missing data.

Run the speed up under load coil and adjust the rpm of the motor so that it neither speeds up nor slows down when the coil is put under load. Now measure the output of the speed up under load coil connected to a load and measure the input to the motor to see what goes in and what comes out.

Now, connect up your single filar coil and adjust the input to the motor until the output to the load is the SAME as the speed up under load coil produced. Measure the input to the motor. IT WILL BE HIGHER than what was needed to produce the same energy generated by the speed up under load coil that was run PROPERLY at the PROPER RPM. I have said the same thing four times now and you still don't get it bi. Have you been totally brainwashed?

Speed up under load coils CANNOT be run at any ol' arbitrary speed and still give MAX output as a generator coil. They have to be TUNED to the rpm you intend to run them at or you have to adjust the rpm TO THE COIL. What he showed was in NO WAY a fair comparison of what the speed up under load coil is capable of. He didn't know that. He doesn't have the experience with that kind of coil. Obviously YOU don't either. Brainwashed.

Or maybe chicken feathers between the ears. I said CHICKEN. Are you hard of hearing too?

[BroMikey]

You said:

So you did not clearly state the 85% efficient generator was
the one seeing the 5 watt load.

No, the 5 watt load should pertain to your 30-33% machine. 15watts input to the drive motor for every 5 watts of load of consumed real power. Yes 5 watts. Now if you need more watts output just multiple by a factor of 3 and you are there. That wasn't so hard.

BTW a standard generating facility doesn't use electrical motors to drive generators that is for lab work only so don't be confused. A cheap average low power single phase induction motor will get an efficiency of 65% at full load. Conversely a cheap average low power single phase induction generator will be about the same. So cut 65% in half and magically your system efficiency pops up. Yes. About 33%. That is okay now you have a starting point.

Beyond that if you build a better design than are available today it should do better on the generator side. In our designs when a generator coil is loaded the drive input does not have a 33% conversion figure, there is no figure at all. Power comes out and no drive power increase.

See what I mean? Infinite. Now then take the new design and add 24 coils with each one producing 100watts. Each bulb powers up for a full 2400 watts and the drive power never changes. Are the light turning on yet? There is no figure to deal with because input power increase is zero. Remember your basic math. 0 X any number is 0. Don't worry, it will still cost you plenty to build so it is not a free lunch, just an infinite COP, that's all.

[bistander]

How about that bet, bi? Put the money where the ol’ mouth is. Talk is cheap. Chicken tracks everywhere around this place!

I don't dismiss his data. I'm sure it is accurate. It is just incomplete.

Here is the way to actually do that test to get the missing data.

Run the speed up under load coil and adjust the rpm of the motor so that it neither speeds up nor slows down when the coil is put under load. Now measure the output of the speed up under load coil connected to a load and measure the input to the motor to see what goes in and what comes out.

Now, connect up your single filar coil and adjust the input to the motor until the output to the load is the SAME as the speed up under load coil produced. Measure the input to the motor. IT WILL BE HIGHER than what was needed to produce the same energy generated by the speed up under load coil that was run PROPERLY at the PROPER RPM. I have said the same thing four times now and you still don't get it bi. Have you been totally brainwashed?

Speed up under load coils CANNOT be run at any ol' arbitrary speed and still give MAX output as a generator coil. They have to be TUNED to the rpm you intend to run them at or you have to adjust the rpm TO THE COIL. What he showed was in NO WAY a fair comparison of what the speed up under load coil is capable of. He didn't know that. He doesn't have the experience with that kind of coil. Obviously YOU don't either. Brainwashed.

Or maybe chicken feathers between the ears. I said CHICKEN. Are you hard of hearing too?

I get it. I understand what you're saying. I never said his test represented exactly what you are doing. Just that it does demonstrate the phenomena involved. Please post the data from your test. And while you're at it, post proof of your machine running at higher output power than input power.

I'm sure I've said this more than four times. Your "speed up under load" trick is irrelevant. I couldn't care less about it. What I want to see is proof of your claim with output/input power data.
Regards,
bi

[Turion]

You didn’t say it “demonstrates the phenomena involved” you said it debunked Thane’s claim about his coil. At least PART of which is what I claim and half the reason my generator works. So whether it does or not is actually NOT irrelevant, which means you DONT get it at all.

There are three positions you can take. The first is that Magnetic Neutralization and Speed up Under Load coils work, but I haven’t actually built the machine. That would be a stupid stance since I have posted many videos of it running. The second stance is that they do not work. Since you know they both work, that is a stupid stance to take also. The third stance to take is that they work, but are irrelevant to power production at speed under load. Which I believe is the position you are taking. Which also shows that you just don’t get it and never will.

By the way, how about that bet? Found a spine yet? Ready to put up or shut up? Or do yo think if you avoid the issue it will just go away? It won’t.

[bistander]

You didn’t say it “demonstrates the phenomena involved” you said it debunked Thane’s claim about his coil. At least PART of which is what I claim and half the reason my generator works. So whether it does or not is actually NOT irrelevant, which means you DONT get it at all.

There are three positions you can take. The first is that Magnetic Neutralization and Speed up Under Load coils work, but I haven’t actually built the machine. That would be a stupid stance since I have posted many videos of it running. The second stance is that they do not work. Since you know they both work, that is a stupid stance to take also. The third stance to take is that they work, but are irrelevant to power production at speed under load. Which I believe is the position you are taking. Which also shows that you just don’t get it and never will.

By the way, how about that bet? Found a spine yet? Ready to put up or shut up? Or do yo think if you avoid the issue it will just go away? It won’t.

Looks like it debunked Thane by demonstration of phenomena involved. Done by measuring input and output power. Something Thane seeming purposely avoids. And which I never see from you. A simple test can show so much.

"is that they work, but are irrelevant to power production at speed under load." Bingo!

What I don't get is why you make a extraordinary claim and won't back it up with proof. Years of arguing about your straw men are irrelevant. You apparently believe they show something important, but that is not the case, at least until you actually prove the primary claim. Then people might take your theories seriously. Until then, it is just BS.

Why is it one anonymous skeptic bothers you so much? Because you know I'm right.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

If you’re right, make the bet. Put your money where your mouth is. But you won’t, because you are wrong and you know I can prove it. So who’s afraid of whom? LOL, Oh Spineless One

[bistander]

If you’re right, make the bet. Put your money where your mouth is. But you won’t, because you are wrong and you know I can prove it. So who’s afraid of whom? LOL, Oh Spineless One

You say "I can prove it."
How many more must die and how much more suffering must the planet and population endure before you prove it and your OU/Free Energy device is implemented and distributed worldwide?
bi

[Turion]

bi,

How many more must die and how much more suffering must the planet and population endure before you replicate it and prove to the world either that it works or I am a fraud?

You have said that neither of the two components of the machine that I claim are responsible for its ability to produce more out than in are "relevant to power production at speed under load." I have staked my reputation on the fact that my claims are true. YOU have no reputation to put at stake, since you hide in the dark and no one knows who you are. You called me a liar, a fraud and a con man. I challenged you to put your money where your BIG MOUTH is and I will prove that magnetic neutralization works and exactly HOW it contributes to power production at speed under load. You have totally ignored the opportunity to make that bet and have that proved because you KNOW it will cost you money. If you are so concerned about all the people suffering and dying, put your money where your mouth is. Spineless. Coward. So how about that bet, bi? If I'm so wrong, put up some money. But I'm NOT wrong, which is why you won't even acknowledge that the bet exists. And YOU know it. So does everyone else here.

[altrez]

You say "I can prove it."
How many more must die and how much more suffering must the planet and population endure before you prove it and your OU/Free Energy device is implemented and distributed worldwide?
bi

I agree with this 100% Think of all the millions of children a device like this could save. If it truly works Dave please send it to Elon Musk he could take this device and cure starvation, dirty water, crop planting. billions of people would benefit from such a device. And sense you have it working you could get it out the door this week!

-Altrez