Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[Farmhand]

No, none of my device are overunity as I understand the term. I do believe that there are many new and novel sources of energy that have practical value. If any device ever appears to be overunity I can tell you for certain that the extra energy is coming from a source and when that source is discovered it will make logical sense.

See what Tesla has to say on this point:

On that occasion I frankly told the engineers of a defect involved in the transformation by the new
method, namely, the loss in the spark gap. Subsequent investigation showed that no matter what
medium is employed, be it air, hydrogen, mercury vapor, oil or a stream of electrons, the
efficiency is the same. It is a law very much like that governing the conversion of mechanical
energy. We may drop a weight from a certain height vertically down or carry it to the lower level
along any devious path, it is immaterial insofar as the amount of work is concerned. Fortunately
however, this drawback is not fatal as by proper proportioning of the resonant circuits an
efficiency of 85 per cent is attainable.

My Inventions
Nikola Tesla's Autobiography

Thank you very much for your frank answer, much appreciated.

About the Tesla Quote, My point exactly.

I'll rephrase the questions.

Have any of your devices shown more energy output than is input by you
either directly or indirectly ? Indirectly meaning as in by capacitive coupling to
other devices such as a power supply next to a battery for example.

In other words, input measured at the input terminals and output measured at the output terminals.

We all know that if energy comes out it must first go in in some form and from
some source, therefore OU cannot mean energy from nowhere, all it can mean
is extra energy out as compared to our input energy. Or in other words
over 100% efficiency means over unity. Unity being the energy input by us
matched by the output as useful work. If any losses are involved in a system
showing equal input to useful work output there must be energy input from
another source. A system showing a total efficiency including all losses would
account for 100 % of all input.

Total efficiency is always 100% because losses are accounted for, energy
cannot be destroyed, working efficiency can be less, because losses are not
considered as output and compared to our input. If extra energy from outside
the circuit is utilized the total efficiency is still 100%, but the working
efficiency "could" be over 100% because all useful work output is compared
only to our input, the extra output would need to exceed the losses though
or the working efficiency would still be below 100%.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

ok thanks, im familiar with the v drop thru most diodes with exception of some, but the thing is that these diodes i mean are on the output coils, not the input trafo HV,
i just think it strange

Hi Mr Clean I have seen the diodes heating problem, In my case it was caused
by when the spark gap conducts the output can draw current directly from
the supply in some situations, it happens in a resonant charging circuit if the
charging inductor has too little inductance, this was in the HV supply but if
the diodes are in the output and the load is low resistance when the primary
spark gap fires the whole system is a closed circuit so the output can draw
directly from the supply. This can cause way more than the rated current
through the diodes.

OK I will do the test, a big bush fire went through here yesterday so I have
work to do, I'll try to do it tonight, and I'll attempt to show if there is much
difference between using an RMS DMM for voltage measurements or the
scope. Last time I measured it roughly it was about 70 % I think. It's not the
best example, it's a tripple transistor simple solid state one. Again this should
not reflect on Mr Bedini's devices this is just the one I made. It's works and
desulfates batteries pretty good, if something works I use it, especially if I
already have it.

Cheers

[Tinmanpower]

Hi Tinmanpower,

I am sorry but you have some confused ideas about ohms law. Resistance does not change with a change in voltage. Also your example is incorrect.

In the first place you are overloading your power supply. You said your theoretical supply could supply 12 volts at 1 amp. If you apply that to a 10 ohm load you would get 1.2 amps which is more than your theoretical supply can supply.

Now lets try it with a 20 ohm resistor. Since we are not overloading the power supply it will now apply 12 volts to the resistor at .6 amps. This figure comes directly from ohms law:
I = V/R. Now change the resistor to 40 ohms. Now the current will drop to .3 amps but the voltage will still be the voltage supplied by the power supply = 12 volts.

Now you may be thinking about voltage drop across a resistor that is part of a circuit. Lets use a simple 12 volt DC circuit. If we have a 12 volt bulb that draws 1 amp that means the resistance of that bulb is 12 ohms. Now lets put a 12 ohm resistor in series with our bulb. We now have a total resistance of 24 ohms so our total current is now .5 amps and our voltage drop across the resistor is 6 volts. This again is from ohms law : V = IR. Now change the resistor to 36 ohms. Now our total circuit resistance is 48 ohms and therefore our current is I = V/R or .25 amps. And our voltage across the resistor is V = IR or 9 volts. So yes changing the resistance of a resistor that is part of a circuit can change the voltage drop across that resistor. But that is not the same as saying changing the voltage will change the resistance. I hope this has helped you to understand the difference.

Respectfully,
Carroll

You misunderstood what i was saying.If the power supply could only put out 12 volts at one amp,then if loaded above that rateing-then the voltage with a 10 ohm resistor would decrease.
What im saying is and was always refering to-is that voltage within an inductor that is being pulsed will increase along with the resistance.
Please remember that we have been talking about mr cleans system,and i have never referd to the voltage being dc.
My example was indeed correct when refering to pulsed dc within an inductor.
I know ohms law quite well by the way,but you seem to be stuck on useing a dc input when we are talking about a pulsed system.

An example that may not confuse anybody.
We have a PWM set to a 30% on time.
Supply voltage is 12 volt's
Output of PWM is being fed to a cap-so we have 12 volts at the cap.
We place a 10 ohm load accross that cap-voltage drop's to a certain voltage
We now remove the 10 ohm resistor and replace it with a 20 ohm resistor
Voltage in the cap now rises to double of that with the 10 ohm load-or slightly higher as we are not creating as much heat as we did with the 10 ohm resistor.
Now useing the same test,but we now have a 24 volt supply from the PWM-what happens?
Thats right-we get a higher voltage at the load resistors.

The very same thing happens within a pulsed inductor or coil if you want to call it that.
The diference is the resistance will climb higher with a higher voltage,as the skin effect become much stronger-which is what causes the higher resistance in the first place.

So in the case of a pulsed inductor or coil-resistance will indeed rise with voltage.
I have never said anything about straight DC.

[quantumuppercut]

If the skin effect causes current to travel near the surface of the wire, then it is equivalent of cutting hollow the the wire. In that case it would reduce the cross section area of the conductor.

[citfta]

Hi Tinmanpower,
I used the example you posted. You clearly said a 12 volt supply which would imply a DC source.

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.

You are mixing up voltage and frequency. The impedance of an inductor will change with a change in frequency. It will not necessarily go up. As you approach the resonant frequency the impedance will go up or down depending on whether we are talking about a parallel circuit or a series circuit.

The resistance is always the same! The skin effect is also only caused by a change in frequency. Voltage has nothing to do with skin effect!

Repectfully,
Carroll

[mr.clean]

Hi Tinmanpower,
I used the example you posted. You clearly said a 12 volt supply which would imply a DC source.




You are mixing up voltage and frequency. The impedance of an inductor will change with a change in frequency. It will not necessarily go up. As you approach the resonant frequency the impedance will go up or down depending on whether we are talking about a parallel circuit or a series circuit.

The resistance is always the same! The skin effect is also only caused by a change in frequency. Voltage has nothing to do with skin effect!

Repectfully,
Carroll

ultimately TinMan is correct as i was using 1khz - 5 khz, regardless of what is exactly the cause...it happens

and i was using parallel LC, which as u said causes a higher impedance as well as the skin effect in play

[mr.clean]

i would love anyones thoughts on Tesla's patents 336,961 and 336,962

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...sla_patent.pdf

http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00336962.pdf

the parts explaining the self-excitation using auxiliary brush and coil in iron case,
the regulation using the automatic means,
the enhanced effects of the coil with reversed direction windings,
the outer ends of L2 being pos and neg rather than neg at center tap
the comparison between L1 Don used and the armature Tesla used


Understanding of these i believe to critical, as they are most likely the origin of our discussion... and what Don openly based his experiments on

[Ein~+ein]

Hi Ein~+ein. Thanks for the info. People who are developing new products will often tend to be very careful about releasing too much detail about their products under development, ....

Seems you're right. Along with admitting BiTT is highly controversial (leading to the dismissal of expert and academic supporters), Heins has deleted the following:
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHein...-tt-comparison You can, however, still download '09 BiTT test data along with other documents at the bottom of this article/interview: Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration Generator Goes Instead of Stopping I couldn't relocate the weblink but I'd read that PDi is partnering with a torroid transformer manufacturer to commercialize his BiTT tech, so perhaps he's further ahead than the lack of a patent would suggest.

Forgive my ignorance--but are all of you trying (in your own free time) to discover a patentable/marketable BiTT/free energy/overunity believing it's possible given Heins' success with ReGenX and/or Tesla's/Leedskelnin's/Bendini's/Smith's claims? Can I conclude from Farmhand and the poll thread that no one's struck gold yet?

[mr.clean]

and can someone tell what is happening here in Russian, is Dynatron running in Self-loop?
watch the connections that lead back to his inverter...
Очень правильный инвертор !!!)))) - YouTube

[mr.clean]

Seems you're right. Along with admitting BiTT is highly controversial (leading to the dismissal of expert and academic supporters), Heins has deleted the following:
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHein...-tt-comparison You can, however, download '09 BiTT test data along with other documents at the bottom of this article/interview: Thane Heins' Regenerative Acceleration Generator Goes Instead of Stopping

Forgive my ignorance--I'm new to all this, but are all of you voluntarily competing/collaborating/trying to discover a patentable/marketable BiTT/free energy/overunity believing it's possible given Heins' success with ReGenX and/or Tesla's/Leedskelnin's/Bendini's/Etc's claims? If so, how close are any of you?

omg thats so funny, I AM mentioned in that article!?! too good i would say i replicated the effect, but wasnt attempting OU by the size of my coil lol

i still like the motor concept, it didnt slow down is the main thing..

my intentions with these experiments are not so much for patenting, as they other's inventions, just testing and hopefully for my own selfish uses... huhahaha...
..and to give freely to everyone

i see good things with both motor/gen, and Bitt, observed enough to pursue further anyway.

look at it this way, regardless of the input (to get the rotor started)
it simply does not give the conventional Armature reaction/bemf drag.
..so i think it has 'potential'

ex: an EV, using existing drive motor, has this coupled to the existing motor, and is producing power while not causing any drag on the drive motor...
At the very least its a gain in efficiency, how can that be bad?

as for how close any of us are, you'll know from our posted vids and findings
found very interesting things, but not "close" to any sort of finished product lol

(im not questioning u directly) but what exactly do we know for a fact about "dismissal" and "losing support"?, what was alleged at one time in an article?
possible? but as well, maybe not, we cant truly know that

but i like an article in the past, that Thane "will be cautious about his exact words moving forward with the technology", but wasnt discouraged at all by obvious initial reactions from the science community, he didnt disappear, he moved forward.
not the usual actions of a faker.
Fakers are the ones who show a mysterious box, putting out mysterious power, and they sell the "plans" in a book for pure profit of selling paper, not any useful info.
In that respect Thane has much credibility to me, having seen all his work, not paid to see it

[Dave45]

i would love anyones thoughts on Tesla's patents 336,961 and 336,962

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...sla_patent.pdf

http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00336962.pdf

the parts explaining the self-excitation using auxiliary brush and coil in iron case,
the regulation using the automatic means,
the enhanced effects of the coil with reversed direction windings,
the outer ends of L2 being pos and neg rather than neg at center tap
the comparison between L1 Don used and the armature Tesla used


Understanding of these i believe to critical, as they are most likely the origin of our discussion... and what Don openly based his experiments on

From what I can gather from the patent he's taping the coils and routing the bemf back to the commutator, this reduces sparking on the main brushes, and improves performance in his generators.
You mentioned a choke in DS device could you be more specific?
dave

[Dave45]

The choke gets my attention because SM used a choke on top of his TPU.
A choke allows only specific frequency's to pass into the circuit, but what is happening to the other frequency's that are blocked, are they converted or do they create a standing wave around the choke.
dave

I believe the choke was the cause of the TV implosions that SM made reference to, I think the flyback arced over to the choke. If a choke is wound right it has cw and ccw windings.

[mr.clean]

From what I can gather from the patent he's taping the coils and routing the bemf back to the commutator, this reduces sparking on the main brushes, and improves performance in his generators.
You mentioned a choke in DS device could you be more specific?
dave

yeah my pleasure, in this pic...

http://www.nuenergy.org/iw/2001/photos/don1.jpg

the yellow double coiled thingy... is a dual RF choke, looks wired thru pos on caps, then thru one of the chokes to output, while neg runs right from caps to output.

don said in this vid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or_wCy2OzWk

that it could be used to sef-loop the device (im guessing using the opposite twin choke back thru fwbr to battery)

but that he hardwired the pos battery terminal to be resonant with L1, he said that this 1/4 relationship would cause RF to charge the source while DC came out (watch vid, im just repeating my understanding of Don)

all very intriguing, and if you got the stuff at hand, why not give it a try (i know u are, i mean anyone)
keep in mind a person gets addicted very easily to HV

and like TheOldScientist on youtube has found in his Longitudonal experiments, HV is necessary!
Tesla wouldve used lower Voltage easily, but used HV for a reason... that reason... we are exploring

[LaserSaber]

@Mr.Clean

Here is a new video showing the dielectric absorption effect that can be very deceiving. I am not saying that is what was happening in your circuit but it is possible. I now have your Bitoroid transformer built. I just need to get the driving circuit built up and running. I cut the rings with a diamond blade.

New video update here: Joule Ringer CrossOver Update! Very long runtime on capacitor. - YouTube

[mr.clean]

@Mr.Clean

Here is a new video showing the dielectric absorption effect that can be very deceiving. I am not saying that is what was happening in your circuit but it is possible. I now have your Bitoroid transformer built. I just need to get the driving circuit built up and running. I cut the rings with a diamond blade.

New video update here: Joule Ringer CrossOver Update! Very long runtime on capacitor. - YouTube

Oh wow that must be what was happening with mine in the thought self0loop!

ok and regarding mine, one thing i can think of RIGHT away is, that the secondary flux paths should be X2 thick at least what i had on mine.
AND dont let the doubled layers touch, like iron laminated cores are insulated from eachother, so with ferrite, at least it will be double the flux lines?
so to stay true to the inventors design, try to make the sec flux paths, much bigger,
mine was totally not doing what i believe it could!