Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[mr.clean]

Looks like there is about 50mA running in the secondary. That means about +50mA running in the primary. Let's say we have 80mA RMS in the primary and winding resistance is 2 Ohms. We can add another .012 to the output which makes it OU. lol

cool thinking

i believe my present setup can be greatly improved, i just dont know what to do right now without a different core, i have seen people use coated wire which would be like laminations... it would allow building it in any shape

..BUT how to finish the iron wire end windings? just leave them open on the ends i guess?

just ideas but a personal friend and EE told me that ferrite can switch faster, (and i just thought it was best)

but he said it could never handle the same power as an iron core. more flux line to disturb

but the "theory" is provocative enough to test a few different things

[Ein~+ein]

Level: Have you tried contacting Thane to resolve your queries? It seems you'd only do him a favour by replicating his results. He recently posted a ReGenX replication video by an unnamed Dutchman on his YouTube channel. I've tweeted him about your efforts and the 39C Don Smith video.

Are you aware he's got 6 presentations and 44 documents on Slideshare? I haven't looked--I don't know if it covers BiTT: Thane heins, President & ceo at Potential difference inc. / president and ceo | SlideShare

I'm no expert on this subject but its obvious that what Thane has discovered may become one of the greatest discoveries of our time.

[Farmhand]

Level: Have you tried contacting Thane to resolve your queries? It seems you'd only do him a favour by replicating his results. He recently posted a ReGenX replication video by an unnamed Dutchman on his YouTube channel. I've tweeted him about your efforts and the 39C Don Smith video.

Are you aware he's got 6 presentations and 44 documents on Slideshare? I haven't looked--I don't know if it covers BiTT: Thane heins, President & ceo at Potential difference inc. / president and ceo | SlideShare

I'm no expert on this subject but its obvious that what Thane has discovered may become one of the greatest discoveries of our time.

Hi Ein~+ein, You mean Overunityguide.

Here is the thread. His results are not just under unity but extremely inefficent.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-effect-9.html

And here is a power evaluation

http://www.energeticforum.com/162516-post245.html

And another, the efficiency is decreased, even though there is a reduction in
loaded input to unloaded, the process is so inefficient to begin with it is
suspicious that they have the gall to call it over unity. Do the sums for total
efficiency, in both modes.

http://www.energeticforum.com/162268-post236.html

In this post I calculate an efficiency of 1.86 % in "regular mode", although I
wouldn't call it regular mode. And I calculate a reduction in efficiency to 1.76 %
in the "Transformer regenerative acceleration mode".

Not very efficient in my books and not a new discovery either.

Can you explain what exactly make that such an important realisation (not a discovery) I don't think ?

Cheers

P.S. That is a couple of new posters now that have just joined to make a first post to support Thane, that is suspicious as well. Stay and join the discussion.

..

[Ein~+ein]

His results are not just under unity but extremely inefficent.
P.S. That is a couple of new posters ... that is suspicious as well. Stay and join the discussion.

Thanks, Farmhand!

You're right. There's a lot to be suspicious of amidst the myriad claims of 'free energy'!! If Heins' results are 'extremely inefficient', (your 1% vs his 7,000%) then he'll surely go down as the Bernie Medoff of EE for having duped so many, especially those with more credentials than himself.

But what if he's right? What if, among the 42 "delayed Lenz" affect videos on YouTube (have you watched them all?), someone's been able to demonstrate what you or Level haven't? As noted by Level, Hines doesn't provide sufficient detail with which to identically replicate his results (true or not?). If so, the only thing you've proven is you haven't replicated his results yet.

Poorly produced YouTube videos are one thing but is there evidence this lack of disclosure on Heins' part is intentional? That's why I tweeted him on Level's behalf. If he wants the public to support him in replicating his work, then I assume he'll assist Level in achieving the 7,000%. But he may wish to pay select individuals once again to replicate his results--those he trusts, or those with the credentials or connections to help him secure patent protection and/or business. If that's the case, we'll have to wait until such products hit the market to test his claims.

[Tinmanpower]

What you said above doesn't make sense to me. The resistance of an inductor is fixed. It does not change with voltage. Maximum power transfer to a load resistor would occur when the load resistor's resistance is equal to the output impedance of the transformer. If the output impedance of the transformer for a given circuit is not known, different load resistor values can be tried such as 10, 50, 100, 1000, ohms etc. to see which one provides the best efficiency. That should at least get a person ball park.

In a situation where an inductor is being pulsed (as in mr cleans system)an inductors resistance dose indeed change .The higher the frequency and voltage-the higher the resistance will climb in that inductor.
This is caused by the skin effect in the inductor's winding wires.
This can also be seen in a simple solid state bedini setup.
At rest the coil may have a resistance of say 6 ohm's
But when running and calculating the coils resistance useing ohms law(volts and amp's input)you can clearly see that the resistance of that inductor is far higher than 6 ohms.How much higher it is will depend on frequency and voltage supplied.
For example,if we use 6 volts at a frequency of say 5khz-the resistance of the inductor may be 40 ohm's
If we use 12 volts at 5khz,the resistance of the inductor may be 70 ohm's.
I know this to be true,as i have seen it many times in my experiments.

[mr.clean]

new vid

hi everyone, i was working on things more, and while tuning i couldnt help but find some interesting things.

despite this being somewhat load sensitive, i really think there is something special here.

if the BARE source wires cant lite the bulb, how could you possibly put it thru a lossy system and get any usable light?

....but it did bigtime!

42 BiToroid: Improvements, Readings, Further Testing, and some Undeniably Good Stuff - YouTube

why does this scream overunity with these tuning bulbs and internal scope R, then disappear with low ohms external R?

[Farmhand]

hi everyone, i was working on things more, and while tuning i couldnt help but find some interesting things.

despite this being somewhat load sensitive, i really think there is something special here.

if the BARE source wires cant lite the bulb, how could you possibly put it thru a lossy system and get any usable light?

....but it did bigtime!

42 BiToroid: Improvements, Readings, Further Testing, and some Undeniably Good Stuff - YouTube

why does this scream overunity with these tuning bulbs and internal scope R, then disappear with low ohms external R?

Regarding the part in bold, because there is a step up in voltage or a step up
in current or a concentration of power. Better impedance matching maybe.

I can take a 12 volt battery that will not light up a 24 volt bulb properly on
it's own,very little current is caused and so the output power is low but with
the use of a boost converter circuit I can light 2 x 24 volt bulbs with 24 volts,
and the output power is much more because I matched the load impedance.

That is the very purpose of a transformer.

Cheers

[gyula]

Hi mr.clean,

I answered to your post in the other thread where you mentioned me, here is the link:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post216142

Greetings, Gyula

[Farmhand]

We can see by the way I am lighting this 5 mm white LED from the case of the
battery using the spilled electrolyte as a conductor that LED's can be lit up with
next to no current, a 3 Watt filament globe will not even glow when I tried it,
But a 5 mm LED is fully lit up. I don't think any lighting of LED's is any good
indication of energy consumed. Over unity is about extra energy, there needs to
be more measurable work done at the output than is done at the input. It
doesn't matter how many lights light up, the measure is in energy dissipated
as useful work compared to energy expended to get it, that includes the
energy involved in switching cost ect. Fair enough if the wall socket is used
then the measure should start there. That is my opinion, we should see it as if
we need to make our own AC or signals as we would if we used a battery or
the like.. To measure the efficiency of the transformer alone then also fair
enough, But for a working device all losses after the wall socket are involved
in efficiency calculations, they must be.

Case of battery conduction - YouTube

I think for people to make Over Unity claims they ought to be showing output
power over 1 Watt and an efficiency of about 105 % at least to cover
measurement and calibration errors.

Cheers

P.S. Now if anyone could explain how I could measure the input and output of
this setup I would be surprised. Power level leak test - YouTube

I haven't done many tests with it yet but at the end I show it can light up a
small fluro extra brights with some 200 mm or so arcs to spare. It's a test to
see how well the terminal holds the HV charge. I estimate it uses about 180 Watts Max.

Always time for some fun.

..

[T-1000]

Some puzzling questions about common things:
What was D. Smith intentions with winding secondary coil in same magnetic poles as two parts of coils are on left/right hand directions?
What magnetic fields polarity make two secondary coils in BiToroid then joining paths between them?
What magnetic polarity E.Leedskalnin's PMH coils make and how it related to his generator magnets?

The thruth is out there...

[Farmhand]

Thanks, Farmhand!

You're right. There's a lot to be suspicious of amidst the myriad claims of 'free energy'!! If Heins' results are 'extremely inefficient', (your 1% vs his 7,000%) then he'll surely go down as the Bernie Medoff of EE for having duped so many, especially those with more credentials than himself.

But what if he's right? What if, among the 42 "delayed Lenz" affect videos on YouTube (have you watched them all?), someone's been able to demonstrate what you or Level haven't? As noted by Level, Hines doesn't provide sufficient detail with which to identically replicate his results (true or not?). If so, the only thing you've proven is you haven't replicated his results yet.

Poorly produced YouTube videos are one thing but is there evidence this lack of disclosure on Heins' part is intentional? That's why I tweeted him on Level's behalf. If he wants the public to support him in replicating his work, then I assume he'll assist Level in achieving the 7,000%. But he may wish to pay select individuals once again to replicate his results--those he trusts, or those with the credentials or connections to help him secure patent protection and/or business. If that's the case, we'll have to wait until such products hit the market to test his claims.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...nz-effect.html

Yeah do the figures and decide for yourself. Just some rough figures from
memory concerning his Regenerative acceleration setup (with the motor)
in one demo I seen about 200 Watts input power to the drive motor, then
when the 40 Watts or so of bulbs is added the input power to the motor drops
a bit and the bulbs are not fully lit so the load power is less than 40 Watts
but the input to the motor is over 90 Watts ( from memory) I might be off on
the actual figures, and he calls that Over unity and (creating energy).

As far as the transformer effect goes I called him out near the beginning of
the thread. http://www.energeticforum.com/154347-post4.html

He was lighting a 2 Watt load and in the (regular mode) generator spun slow it
required 58 Watts to power a 2 Watt load and in the (regen mode) it required
74 Watts to power the 2 Watt load and see a reduction in input though the
input in the regen mode was still 16 Watts more than in the slow mode.

The setup itself was inherently inefficient but it was more inefficient in regen
mode than when spun slower. Using 74 Watts to run a 2 Watt load is
absolutely ridiculous.

Now with the BiTT, I can show OU using a small transformer at very low
power levels, He didn't determine the all important power factor accurately.
From memory he just lined it up on the scope, in my experience the phase
angle is constantly varying. His load resistance is too high for the voltage
applied and he uses clamp meters to measure the current, ect. ect.

Yes he ought to do another demonstration showing more clearly the entire
power train from the wall socket and with properly determined power factor as
well as more accurate measuring equipment.

No replication will ever be satisfactory and he can always use the excuse that
any replication not showing OU is not quite right. The onus of providing
sufficient evidence of the 8000% OU is on him the responsibility is his and his
alone. I think there is ample reason to say the demo was flawed and not accurate.

With the regen acceleration setup with the motor he has never shown more
energy out of the load than is used to power the setup. Not ever that I have
seen. And yet he claims it is OU.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Please watch this video to understand the way that I test actual efficiency while experimenting: Lumens test! Super Joule Ringer 2.0 smokes traditional inverter! - YouTube I know that this method is not enough to please everybody but it is plenty accurate enough for me and has served me will. I really do not understand how people think that I have achieved the efficiency levels I am at without taking careful power measurements.



I really see no reason to use a scope to measure power between a battery and a capacitor. Maybe to check for a voltage fluctuation on the cap?



On overunity.com you asked:



That is an interesting question. How much DC power does it take to light an AC LED bulb to the same brightness.




Of coarse I completely agree.


I posted this at Laserhacker forum last night and it may help to explain what I find interesting in this circuit:


This circuit just keeps getting more interesting to me. Before going to bed I decided to go out to the shed and take a quick current reading. It's freezing cold here tonight! Anyway, my shed is unplugged from my house and I have the antenna line connected to my metal roof. It is completely dark so the solar panels should be creating no effects. The circuit is clicking along at a pretty low frequency but all the LEDs in the bulb are glowing very dimly. I have the circuit on the 50V cap connected to a nine volt battery. Between the cap and the battery I have my most sensitive 500ua current meter and the needle is resting on the zero mark. I need to get a more senstive digatal meter to see what is really happening here. I also tried it with a 16v 33uF cap and with that one I was able to see the needle bouncing just a little. Disconnected from the battery on that little 16v 33uF cap the circuit ran glowing the bulb dimly for well over 1 minute before I stopped it because I was getting to cold.

Whatever the case, the current draw is in the very low micro-amps. It's very hard to tell at this point because caps themselves have some amount of leakage . I have never been able to light one of these LED bulbs at these low current levels in the past. For me this is a new personal record. I am very happy with it. I am familiar with glowing an LED from a crystal radio type setup. I have done that before. To do it I had to run hundreds of feet of antenna up and onto the hill behind me. Even then I could only get a single green LED lit very very dimly and that was during stormy weather. It was so bad I never even made a video of it. So I speak from experience when I say that this is a very different effect. Beside I was never able to light one from the metal roofing of my shed. I could not even pull in a radio station on my crystal set using the metal roof. I am very close to putting this one in an enclosure and moving on to the bitoroid transformer with the same circuit.

I am not making any claims or trying to spread hype, but so far this circuit smashes all my previous efficiency records for run time on a capacitor. I am optimistically trying to get it running continually on a steady cap voltage. I even have crazy hopes of seeing it run on a climbing cap voltage and I am not talking about dielectric absorption. Right now I could easily show a climbing voltage with glowing LED for at least a few minutes before the dielectric absorption would begin to fade. This may have been what was happening with Mr.clean's setup. We may never know as he was not even able to reproduce the effect.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with comparisons to a regular inverter, it has
to do with the actual efficiency. What is the efficiency in % by continuous
Watts in/out. The light is irrelevant also, what is the efficiency in measured
power ?

How much power does your setup use when there is no load like you showed
with the regular inverter. Can you add remove loads and have them powered
properly up to the full output power of the regular inverter.

Can you power 1 light then add more lights, let the setup idle, can the setup
run a fan or a 220v AC appliance. To make a comparison with a regular
inverter the device must be able to do all the same things.

I'm not interested in light outputs. I am only interested in measured power out
compared to measured power in continuously and accurately.
True efficiency is not a comparison to another device, it is a factor of power
out compared to power in.

Why not measure it and give a figure in % efficiency ?

What is the idle input power of your setup with no load ?

How long can your device run at maximum output power ?

What is the max power output ? And what is the actual efficiency when
providing maximum power output ? Lighting LED's is dead easy I can do it from
the plastic case of a battery.

Show us the measured efficiency of your device. Then do a comparison with
various loads up to the maximum output power of both devices.

Plug some AC appliances into your device to show it is equal in usefulness,
Run a small shaded pole motor from it or some other 50/60 Hz dependent
device, then you will see you are comparing apples and oranges. An unfair
comparison for hype.

I don't have the replication sickness, I won't be replicating things that I don't
see measured. I have no intention of replicating many under unity devices
that are of no real use to me.

Cheers

P.S. For example this 75 Watt capable picaxe controlled boost converter with
adjustable current and voltage output, tested at over 95% efficient twice,
but I downgraded to 92 % because of inherent inaccuracies. The efficiency of
the device changes depending on the power throughput, at high power the
efficiency is less than at low power. The point is the efficiency is easy to
measure. I admit my measurement in the video is rough but close. There is
absolutely no need to compare it to anything else to determine it's efficiency.
Output voltage can go to 40 volts (restricted by IN5833 diodes).

I might determine it's efficiency more accurately later, i have a better scope now.

Boost Converter - YouTube

..

[LaserSaber]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with comparisons to a regular inverter, it has
to do with the actual efficiency. What is the efficiency in % by continuous
Watts in/out. The light is irrelevant also, what is the efficiency in measured
power ?

You must really have no clue what my goal was when I made the SJR 2.0 circuit. In my videos about the SJR circuit I have stated that my goal is to see how much light output I can produce on the amount of current my inverter idles at. My inverters use between 200mA - 500mA of current at idle with no load. I achieved my goal and have been using the SJR circuit to run lights in my solar workshop ever since. You really should inform yourself as to what a person’s stated goals are before you engage them in discussion, as it will help you to appear to have more intelligence.

How much power does your setup use when there is no load like you showed
with the regular inverter.

Again, if you knew anything about the SJR 2.0 and later circuits you would know that they use no power when the load is removed. They auto shut down when the light is flipped off. All this while using only a single 2n3055, so there is very little component loss.

Can you add remove loads and have them powered
properly up to the full output power of the regular inverter.

Yes, I can add or remove lights up until the point where the current draw starts to overheat the 2N3055. The more lights added the less gain you get over a regular inverter. A good inverter with 90 percent efficiency is fine while running at it’s optimum load. However, with smaller loads there is a loss of efficiency because of the 500mA idle current. This is why in my both my workshop and my SOLN1 device I have included a regular inverter as well as a SJR. If you want to just run a few LED light bulbs you can use the SJR and achieve a longer runtime on the battery pack. If you need to run a heavy load you can use the inverter. Can you understand this?

Can you power 1 light then add more lights, let the setup idle, can the setup
run a fan or a 220v AC appliance. To make a comparison with a regular
inverter the device must be able to do all the same things.

I have experimented with running AC motors with some success. I have heard reports of scaled up SJRs running motors overseas, where I would guess the current is 220v. The only reason I made the comparison video with the inverter was because some random guy on youtube got in an argument with me. He said that if I did a test where I lit a bulb on the inverter and then lit the same bulb on the SJR while doing lux measurements, I would see that the SJR uses more energy for the same lumens output.

I'm not interested in light outputs. I am only interested in measured power out
compared to measured power in continuously and accurately.

At this point, I could care less what you are interested in. You came on this forum saying that I was spreading hype. It’s like you think that I have claimed overunity and must now prove it to you. I have never claimed to have achieved overunity on any of my projects.

True efficiency is not a comparison to another device, it is a factor of power
out compared to power in.

Yes, of coarse! Imagine that you have two equal glasses, one full of water and one empty. If you transfer the water between the cups you will have some loss but never any gain. In this case, efficiency would be a measurement of how completely you are able to transfer the water. It sounds like you think a way may be discovered to get more water out of the first cup than you started with and you want to measure the extra amount of water very, very carefully.

It is very easy to do efficiency measurements while experimenting. You will most likely never create a very efficient device if you do not take measurements while experimenting. This is why I always experiment on projects with an ammeter between a battery and a large capacitor with my device connected to the capacitor. The closer the meter gets to zero the better, but if I ever see it go negative I will not waist time measuring the effect - I will be trying to discover where the extra energy is coming from! I do not believe in any free energy scheme where new energy is created within the device. That would be like getting more water in the second cup than you started with in the first cup. If we ever discover a cup of water that when tipped on edge continues pouring out water non-stop, while Farmhand is taking carful measurements, I will be locating and identifying the water source.

Why not measure it and give a figure in % efficiency ?

I and many others have and when we saw efficiencies above 90 percent we just started using it. Because of the circuits simplicity, its ability to give practical light at the idle current of most inverters and it’s low cost it is well worth using right along side a traditional inverter in projects such as the SOLN1.

What is the idle input power of your setup with no load ?

It’s a well know fact that with the SJR 2.0 and later models the input usually drops to zero with no load. Did you even watch my videos or do you think you can just make uninformed judgments about people and their motives?

How long can your device run at maximum output power ?

That would completly depend on the AH capacity of the battery, now, wouldn't it? At this point I cannot believe I am even still answering these questions.

What is the max power output ? And what is the actual efficiency when
providing maximum power output ? Lighting LED's is dead easy I can do it from
the plastic case of a battery.

You light a 40 Watt Equivalent 7.5 Watt Utilitech Pro bulb to full brightness from the plastic case of your battery or even with a homebuilt inverter at around half an amp on a 12v battery and we will all be very interested, in the mean time your battery case trick has no practicle use to me.

Show us the measured efficiency of your device. Then do a comparison with
various loads up to the maximum output power of both devices.

I and many others do that sort of testing frequently and the results have been reported freely on the forums and youtube. Again, you act as if I have to support some extraordinary claims or something.

Plug some AC appliances into your device to show it is equal in usefulness,
Run a small shaded pole motor from it or some other 50/60 Hz dependent
device, then you will see you are comparing apples and oranges. An unfair
comparison for hype.

If it was equal in usefulness in all situations then why do you think I would be including a regular inverter in the SOLN1? Why do you think I have a regular inverter that I have proudly shown in my youtube videos in my shop working in harmony with the SJR. Think about that for a few hours and see if you can come up with an answer.

I don't have the replication sickness, I won't be replicating things that I don't
see measured. I have no intention of replicating many under unity devices
that are of no real use to me.

Fine. You go find an “overunity” device and replicate that and take measurements to your hearts content. While you spend the rest of your life doing that, I will be out flying my working replication of a home built solar charged paraglider, starting my car with boostcaps, lighting my workshop with SJR technology and taking my whole house off the grid.

[Tinmanpower]

You seem to be mixing up various different concepts. The original statement was that a coil's resistance increases with voltage. There was no mention of frequency. The resistance in a coil does not increase with voltage. If the resistance of a coil changed with voltage, that would actually make Ohm's law invalid. Resistance in a coil relates to the conductor material that the coil is made from and the coil's conductor diameter. Again, this does not change with voltage. Impedance of a coil does increase with frequency however. The resistance of a coil is not the same as the impedance of a coil. As for Skin effect, it is a function of frequency, not voltage. At any rate, it is a simple matter to look up the formulas for such properties and effects to see if voltage is a factor or not.

When pulsing a coil, current will lag the voltage, i.e., the current will start off low and slowly increase towards its steady state value. This does not mean that the coil's resistance is changing however. This effect actually relates to other properties of coils.

Well maybe it did get mixed up some where,but as we were refering to the situation at hand,i assumed we all knew it was a pulsed system we were talking about.
What im trying to say is that resistance will rise along with the voltage,or voltage will rise along with the resistance-maybe i worded it wrong,my appologies.
If we have a 12 volt supply and an avalible current of say 1 amp at that 12 volts,and we then place it accross say a 10 ohm resistor as a load-the voltage accross that resistor will be so much.
If we then use a 100 ohm resistor with the same avalible current supply,we will get a higher voltage accross that resistor.
So what i was saying is that the voltage will rise with resistance,or as i worded it-resistance will rise with voltage.
As they rise at the same time,i dont see that it matters which way it is worded.

I am also aware that voltage lead's current within an inductor.
As far as books and what is said to be fact about how thing's work,well i use them as a guide only and do not take it as gospal.

As far as a straight dc voltage and current raising the resistance of an inductor-i agree with you completly.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[quantumuppercut]

This is a good discussion. I would say Resistance is proportional to temperature, but temperature could be proportional to current flowing through it. Heat transfer is proportional to temperature therefore proportional to current squared.

Current and resistance

R = Ro[1+a(T-To)] where Ro is resistance under ambient temperature.

So the resistance of something under current maybe differ by:

R= Ro[1+a(Irms)^2]