3 Battery Generating System

[bistander]

Power Factor

By definition, the direction of the current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes the initial charging magnetic field. The two opposing magnetic fields being forced together is what the motor has to overcome and why the amp draw of the motor goes up when the generator coils are under load.

In other words, as a magnet approaches a coil that is connected to a load forming a completed circuit, a magnetic field will be formed in the coil that opposes the field of the approaching magnet. At top dead center the field in the coil flips polarity, attracting the magnet that is trying to move away.

Read Tesla patent 512,340. In it he describes a method for winding a coil so that the capacitance of the coil is increased to the point that, when the rotor with a proper number of magnets on it is turned at the proper speed (fast enough) the formation of that opposing field does not occur soon enough to repel the approaching magnet. If it is formed at exactly the right time there is NO reaction at all (and the generator coil produces the MOST power). If it is formed s bit later, just as the rotor magnet passes top dead center, it pushes the magnet away in the direction it is moving. Less power is produced by the coil in this case.

Per Tesla:
"I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency."

Because there is no opposing field under load, there is no increased amp draw of the motor when the coils are under load. My motor pulls 12 amps at 24 volts whether there is a load on the coils or NOT.

The trick was figuring out how many wires at what length to wind a coil that would match the number of magnets I had on the rotor turned by the specific motor running on 24 volts at a specific rpm. Anything under 2800 rpm and I do not get the effect. Too much rpm and I get speed up under load or lens assist, and power output goes down. It took over a year to figure out all the variables and put together the perfect coil for this machine. But ANY coil will work as long as you can figure out how fast the rotor has to turn for THAT particular coil.

Tesla also says you can increase the capacitance of the coil by using a capacitor along with it and get the same result, but I have never tried that. I do not remember if he said in series or parallel, but I imagine it was in series.

Sounds more like altering the phase angle, or decreasing the Power Factor.

[Turion]

Lenz

By definition, the direction of the current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes the initial charging magnetic field. The two opposing magnetic fields being forced together is what the motor has to overcome and why the amp draw of the motor goes up when the generator coils are under load.

In other words, as a magnet approaches a coil that is connected to a load forming a completed circuit, a magnetic field will be formed in the coil that opposes the field of the approaching magnet. At top dead center the field in the coil flips polarity, attracting the magnet that is trying to move away.

Read Tesla patent 512,340. In it he describes a method for winding a coil so that the capacitance of the coil is increased to the point that, when the rotor with a proper number of magnets on it is turned at the proper speed (fast enough) the formation of that opposing field does not occur soon enough to repel the approaching magnet. If it is formed at exactly the right time there is NO reaction at all (and the generator coil produces the MOST power). If it is formed s bit later, just as the rotor magnet passes top dead center, it pushes the magnet away in the direction it is moving. Less power is produced by the coil in this case.

Per Tesla:
"I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. (No Self induction means NO OPPOSING FIELD CREATED!) This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency."

Because there is no opposing field under load, there is no increased amp draw of the motor when the coils are under load. My motor pulls 12 amps at 24 volts whether there is a load on the coils or NOT.

The trick was figuring out how many wires at what length to wind a coil that would match the number of magnets I had on the rotor turned by the specific motor running on 24 volts at a specific rpm. Anything under 2800 rpm and I do not get the effect. Too much rpm and I get speed up under load or lens assist, and power output goes DOWN. It took over a year to figure out all the variables and put together the perfect coil for this machine. But ANY coil will work as long as you can figure out how fast the rotor has to turn for THAT particular coil. The problem is, sometimes that rpm is way higher than your motor can achieve or your rotor can withstand.

Tesla also says you can increase the capacitance of the coil by using a capacitor along with it and get the same result, but I have never tried that. I do not remember if he said in series or parallel, but I imagine it was in series. In the old days they used expensive bulky capacitors. His "invention" replaced that.

[bistander]

Lenz

...
Here's a video from an "independent lab" you may have heard of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ5xnyj7xe4

What does residual magnetizm have to do with Lenz? What do his videos have to do with Lenz, aside from the title.


Lenz's Law is qualitative. It is simply that negative sign that you see in Faraday's Law. How can it be delayed?

[Turion]

Results!

altrez,

Glad to see you haven't given up and are having positive results. Just don't tell anyone here or they will call you a fraud. LOL When you SEE what is possible with your own eyes, it is pretty hard for ANYONE to convince you that there is nothing of importance going on with this setup. I hope you are having fun and continue to learn. Once you have a system that you KNOW is putting out more than you are putting in, you are at the ground floor of the empire state building when it comes to what is possible. But this system, and playing around with it, will teach you everything you need to know if you continue to add parts and pieces that have been talked about o this thread and see what you can do with them in different combinations.

[altrez]

So in other news. I am having some really good results using a function generator and a transistor switch to pulse a stock motor. I tried this before but this time I put it on the negative rail of the 3BS with a blocking diode.

I will post some scope shots and results soon but it seems to be working well.



-Altrez

[Aaron]

trolls

Aaron, for Pete's sake please give one example of something out of all
your drivel that actually works.
I can cite loads of failures.

The textbook misses an opportunity (as does every other textbook on my shelf) to make an important connection: Lenz’s law is just a version of Newton’s third law applied to a particular kind of situation; that is, a situation where a changing magnetic flux induces a current in a loop of wire.

Check out what I said about Newton.

If you really want to get somewhere you've got to get into relativistic matters.

Sincerely. John.

Drivel? You're too ignorant to comprehend it, therefore it is unappealing to your intellectual dishonesty. Evasion of the Essential - you're mentally and emotionally incapable of handling the facts so you resort to petty criticism. You are a coward. That is a mental illness that plagues humanity and you are demonstrating it with textbook precision.

You said nothing of significance relating to Newton.

You're wrong - Lenz's Law is not a version of the Third Law of Motion - it is a myth that mechanical laws automatically apply to electrical and visa versa. Lenz's Law is not a law - it is only a condition that applies under very certain parameters.

A slow boring video showing a Bedini SG type circuit in forced oscillator mode (not self oscillator mode) that is running on a capacitor - not a battery and the recovery goes to another capacitor. The recovery capacitor is fed to the front pseudo-looping it so that the front circuit sees the recovery and can use it but the front capacitor does not see it - therefore, the circuit remains open and the dipole isn't killed.

As the front capacitor runs down from its one, single initial charge up, it then slowly charges back up under it's own operation - self running and the COP simply climbs exponentially over time. Not powering anything other than its own circuit but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it demonstrates many principles that you are emotionally and mentally incapable of embracing or comprehending and it demonstrates everything that you say cannot be done or has not been demonstrated. It requires an isolated recovery winding and this can be done with capacitors just as shown in the 3 battery or 3 capacitor mode on the front side for an even more impressive demonstration but you don't deserve to know anything about it.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDtXR_1Ubs8[/VIDEO]

Relativistic matters? You can't even comprehend what is responsible for relativistic effects as evidenced by your statement. Had you comprehended what I told you about energy and potential, you would already know what relativity actually is and what causes it.

""My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926."



Miller was proven to be in the positive and the non-bastardized interferometer experiments always show positive results of a dynamic aether - something you can not debate.


And


"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

Miller flushed Einstein's non-aetheric relativity down the drain and Einstein was very open about that in his final days - fully admitting he was pushing nothing more than pure unadulterated nonsense - that was his real legacy - wasting everyone's time.

Do not give trolls what is sacred - do not throw your pearls to trolls.

[Iamnuts]

Example.

Aaron, for Pete's sake please give one example of something out of all
your drivel that actually works.
I can cite loads of failures.

The textbook misses an opportunity (as does every other textbook on my shelf) to make an important connection: Lenz’s law is just a version of Newton’s third law applied to a particular kind of situation; that is, a situation where a changing magnetic flux induces a current in a loop of wire.

Check out what I said about Newton.

If you really want to get somewhere you've got to get into relativistic matters.

Sincerely. John.

[Aaron]

Serps

From:
Jim Murray ? Dynaflux & SERPS ? Gestalt Reality

Not sure I see the big deal. Energy storage devices or systems are used all the time for this. Batteries, capacitors, flywheels, etc.

bi

Posting that quote shows indisputably that you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. You don't show what you know, you're showing us all exactly what you don't. You can't even comprehend what the statement even means.

[Aaron]

Newton

However you try,you won’t get past Newton.

With that comment, it means you don't understand Newton, nor do you comprehend what I said about him or are unwilling to comprehend what I said about him because it causes you too much emotional discomfort. You cannot find fault in what I said.



First of all, they're not Newton's Laws of Motion - they Huygen's Laws of Motion, which came well before Newton. All Newton did was properly deduce the mathematical relationships between mass, gravity, etc. So more properly, they're Newton's Equations for Huygen's Laws of Motion. The numbers are correct but the interpretation of them has always been incorrect - inverse from reality. Newton had relatively very few contributions to the physical sciences as he was more of a dedicated alchemist.

As I said, MGH will give the proper amount potential of a mass at a certain height but it does NOT mean it is stored in the object! There is no such thing as storing potential - there is only dissipation of energy and then a creation of a new potential difference in cyclic systems - nothing is ever stored.

What you are unable to do is admit that you have never realized that you have seen it backwards from reality. The PROOF is a measurable amount of work that was input and the SAME amount of measurable work when the object is released. That, in and of itself, for anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, must admit that obviously, the total amount of work done by us and the object, when it is allowed to fall, is 200% of what we had to contribute. No amount of misdirection will ever change this indisputable fact. This is a simple concept any child can understand and prove to themselves with basic math and elementary equations.

This is 100% identical to inductors and their magnetic fields. The sequential mechanics of charging a coil, having a field, discharging and getting back recovery is correct. But what is happening is very different from what is commonly understood or believed.

You dissipate energy - real work is being done to charge a coil and create a magnetic field. 100% of the work being done to create that magnetic field is being dissipated and ZERO% of it is stored in the magnetic field. The entire notion of storing potential has to be erased for anyone to understand the nature of energy and potential. The idea of storing energy also has to be deleted as you cannot store WORK and that is the one and only meaning of energy = work.

You dissipate 100% of what you put into a coil as you are charging it. That magnetic field displaces the aether around it somewhat volumetrically, but moreso by density displacement. When you cut the power to the coil, the aether is seeking equilibrium and as it rebounds back to where it was displaced from, it pushes that magnetic field back through the windings of the coil very fast and that is where you get the inductive high voltage spike with little current. The spike was not from energy we put into the coil. We cannot get back what we are dissipating to create the magnetic field - it's 100% all gone the moment it is used to create the magnetic field.

We've created a gradient or potential difference between the aether and that magnetic field. Displacing the aether is no different than lifting one end of a board into the air. Power is cut to the coil and what happens after that point is coming back from the environmental input of the aether moving towards equilibrium. As I said, there is only dissipation of energy as we use it so there is nothing left to store - you can't store what you just used up! A new potential difference is created, then new, fresh potential enters the system to do more work, which is completely separate from what we put in.

Energy always is and only is being created anytime work is done because that is what energy is. Energy is work and nothing more. The moment work is done, energy manifests out of thin air, which is nothing more than potential being dissipated down toward equilibrium. When you see work, you are seeing the CREATION of Energy and simultaneously while there is dissipation of that potential, you are seeing the DESTRUCTION of Energy. Energy can only be created and destroyed and they both happen simultaneously.

Energy CANNOT transform from one form to another. There is no such thing as different forms of energy. Only those who confuse energy as being the thing and potential being the abstract will be fooled.

In reality, energy is the abstract - it is the EXPERIENCE of potential being dissipated - it is the ACTIVITY that potential experiences and an ACTIVITY is not a thing, it is the abstract. That is the proper definition of WORK, indisputably.

Potential is the THING - not the abstract. Aether that is polarized and condensed by a potential difference/dipole moves from the positive terminal over the wire like a wave-guide and that moving, polarized and condensed aether is what Electromotive Force is. People talk about EMF but it is always in the context of some mythical thing that just exists without explanation of what the hell it is. That is what EMF is, positively charged, polarized and condensed aether that is sourced right out of space. It's also known as the Heaviside Flow, but that is just jargon - polarized and condensed aether gas actually tells you what it is.

That is the SOURCE POTENTIAL and is the tangible thing. If there is an open circuit at a dipole, then your volt meter will read the PRESSURE of the aether sitting there - just like the psi gauge on an air tank because that literally is what you are measuring - the pressure of a gas. When you connect a circuit to give it a place to go to a lower potential (the ground or neutral terminal) - it will flow and when it is moving, that is EMF. 1) Voltage Potential and 2) EMF - the TWO types of voltages.

That EMF or aether gas moving over the wire is positive so it pulls electrons from the copper wire itself and those electrons move towards the positive terminal and that is what the so-called electron current is that you measure in amps.

So, energy being the abstract, intangible experience that potential experiences, energy remains the same in 100% of every energy system. Heat, chemical, electrical, mechanical, etc. in 100% of every system in 100% of every situation, energy always remains the SAME - it has been, is and always will be nothing more than the dissipation of organized potential so it CANNOT ever change forms.

Looking at the POTENTIAL of a system - whether it is heat, chemical, mechanical, etc. in 100% of every system in 100% of every situation, the potential that moves from a highly organized state then gets dissipated by whatever action the system is designed to dissipate it is still 100% the same potential from the aether in every single case. The potential always is the same as well.

Any chemical action is not due to mythical "charge" that is intrinsic to the chemicals - all chemistry is a whole soup of dipoles - that is all a chemical is and those chemicals with various polarities and strengths of polarities polarize the aether in their local environment and that EMF moves from one point to another to get electrons to move in the opposite direction. Lifting an object and having the downward flowing aether or gravitational source potential push on the protons that make up the mass of an object is the SAME source potential that potentializes chemical actions. There is no difference because in every case, it is the SAME source potential, which is the ambient aether being polarized. Chemical, heat, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc. every single one is using the SAME source potential.

It is nothing more than mass brainwashing to believe that energy is conserved, potential is stored and that energy can't be created or destroyed but only changes form. The only thing that is proven by such nonsense is that mass hypnosis works.


If you and loudmouth bistander can't even properly understand the basics of energy and potential and what they even are, stop posting because you're not even qualified to analyze a flashlight. This is not about semantics, it is about seeing things as they are and not what has been poured into a funnel down your throats.

Can't get past Newton? LOL - Evasion of the Essential - you have no comprehension of the logic I provided regarding the topic and that is all you have to say!!?? Wiggling like a snake because you can't bear to admit that you have been living under a delusion all your life regarding the fundamental knowledge of energy and potential - in other words, your entire premise is on shaky ground and you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it and neither does bistander.

As I quoted Reich, it applies to you - evasion of the essential - the inability to address the topic at hand while commenting on something that may seem related, but actually is a misdirection to prevent, delay and avoid the uncomfortable feeling arising from within that makes you feel vulnerable by being called out and shot down for being intellectually dishonest.

[Turion]

Correct!

With the coil cores in place on my machine and NO magnetic neutralization in place the motor pulls 36 amps just to turn the rotor past those cores. At NO LOAD. Since the MY1020 STOCK motor is only rated for 30 amps I burnt up a few just trying to turn the rotor with the coils in place. WITH magnetic neutralization in place the motor only pulls 12 amps to accomplish exactly the same job. That job is turning the rotor with magnets on it past 12 coils containing iron cores. NOTHING I am doing interferes with the effect the rotating magnets have on the iron cores or reduces the power output by the coils as you alluded to in your prior post. If you had bothered to watch the videos I posted you would have already KNOWN that because I showed exactly what I am doing.

Standard generators do NOT eliminate this problem. That’s why electric motors CANNOT be used to run standard generatores. It takes more to run the motor than the generator produces.

That leaves ONE problem to deal with. That is the effect coils under load have on the magnets in the rotor, which is than transferred to the motor, increasing its amp draw. Is that a fair assessment? Delayed lens, which you insist doesn’t exist, solves the problem. If it DOES exist, and works as I have stated and described, what you have is a motor that STILL draws only 12 amps or LESS, and can put out however much power the coils can generate.

How many people have demonstrated WITH VIDEO that delayed lens exists and works? DOZENS. Yet you claim it does not exist because you haven’t seen a scientific paper published on the subject. Perhaps it is time to build your very own rotor and wind a single coil so you can see what you are missing. Or simply search YouTube for delayed lens and spend a few minutes. How big you build it is up to you since the number of magnets on the rotor and the number and size of the coils NO LONGER are an issue.

Here's a video from an "independent lab" you may have heard of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ5xnyj7xe4

[bistander]

Q & A part 2

OK, let me rephrase it just for you:
Is the amp draw of the motor turning a rotor with magnets on it higher when iron cores are in place as compared to when no iron cores are in place?

Yes. _____________

[Aaron]

nonsense

Hi Cadman,

No, I do not want the details. I am really not interested where he puts a magnet or how he winds a coil. All I want is proof of his claim. 2000 watts out / 300 watts in. I have said previously, put it in a black box. Two ports. In and out. Instrument both ports. Demonstrate 2000 watts out while only 300 watts going in for long enough to rule out energy storage inside the box being responsible for any of the output. Simple.

Regards,

bi

That's ridiculous - you're on the Internet and you think even a video or anything else online is going to prove anything to you? Being that this is the case, I can show you proof that I have multiple perpetual motion machines and you will never find a flaw in what I can present and I don't need a black box. Only someone very naive would accept that as "proof". Also, you permit a black box in the same paragraph that you are requesting proof. That is completely laughable.

Look at Peter's demonstration at the conference - the Kromrey was putting 200% into the battery compared to what was running it. It's still a video, behind the scenes we already know the reality. Yet, in the end, it is still nothing more than a video offered up as a demo and it is up to everyone to believe what they want and to build it and try to get the same results. All details necessary to replicate it have been given so just like this thread, there are no excuses. And imagine what the COP would be if it was running on some variation of the 3 battery methodology.

You're not entitled to anything - nobody owes you anything. You're not a skeptic, you're a cynic who is doing nothing more than filtering all information and knowledge here through the eyes of impossibility based on your flawed and naive beliefs in the conservation of energy. Get a life!



You have not actually had any meaningful two-way conversation with Turion regarding what he has shared. You're incapable of acknowledging simple scientific truths about these processes and you're definitely incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that the premise for your cynicism is completely wrong. Believing in something so erroneous is evidence that you are suffering from a delusion. Stop wasting everyone's time and stop filling up this thread with your repetitive nonsense - go start you own thread and put your criticisms in there. You're forcing everyone that is interested in this to pour through your mindless nonsense in order to find the posts of value.


"Finally, the discussion began to develop. It was amazing to witness the evasion of the essential, the bypassing of the issue at hand, and its replacement by petty criticism. " - Wilhelm Reich

[Turion]

NOT a trick question

OK, let me rephrase it just for you:
Is the amp draw of the motor turning a rotor with magnets on it higher when iron cores are in place as compared to when no iron cores are in place?

[bistander]

Q and A

It was a simple yes or no question. What is the answer.

Again you attempt to baffle with BS instead of answering the simple question.

Let me ask you once again. Is the amp draw of the motor turning a rotor with magnets on it higher when coils with iron cores are in place as compared to when no coils are in place? You avoided answering that question.

YES or NO?

It's a trick question. It has nothing to do with coils just iron cores and moving magnets. Take the reference to coils out of the question and maybe then I can give a one word answer.

[Aaron]

verification

Aaron.
The fact is that there is not a proven thing.
If something worked,with the power of the Internet, it would spread. Quicker
than a forest fire in a drought!
However you try,you won’t get past Newton.
Skeptics,like Turion,who don’t believe in simple equations regarding induction
will have a hard job proving said equations are flawed.
Electric generators have two outputs,heat being the enemy. I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
I would absolutely love to see these people succeed.
Sincerely John.

One of my friends flew to visit both Dave and Matt so there is more that is known about all of this than you think.