3 Battery Generating System

[Duncan]

flux capacitor

She's Alive... Beautiful... Finite... Hurting... Worth Dying for. - YouTube
Hi Dave I have a suggestion … there's a few big ifs but I think could resolve the battery issue
It is I must confess a “hotch potch” of various bits and pieces .
First like all of you I keep an eye on quite a few threads that seem to have merit hoping for inspiration. One of them is the “re-inventing the wheel” thread started by Wonju. The trouble is I had the stupid idea that the wheel should be round.
Anyway I eventually felt I had to post . At the same time the basic construct and Idea of what I concluded applies to this machine … Steve Marks …. and of course many others. As I explained on my own thread all these things are going to have common ground. No one is discovering or inventing anything its all been done many times before by many people … we are boys and girls simply trying to exhume the bodies …. all to literally I'm afraid, anyway I suspect with some little adaptation It may resolve the issues here. Its probably best and certainly easier for me if you skip quickly through through Wonju's thread and get the gist. Hopefully see what I'm at with this post

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post234866

I obviously haven't built this but you will see its founded in the principles above . First a high frequency ferrite toroid is the principle part the main winding is Bifilar. The object being to reverse the magnetic flux in core 2 as quickly as possible. Its Bifilar in order to reproduce the effect of the counter winding on one core.



Another possibility to consider is the use of the ubiquitous Avramenko Plug and one winding ..
I must confess the AV plug has always been something of a mystery to me … however it seems to get the linear wave job done so I've dotted in the possible options.
The changing magnetic flux I see as cancelling the chaotic elements at high frequency
The internal impedance of lead acid cells are known as very low and so it shouldn’t be to much of a horrendous task to wind the coil to a series resonate state.
The trouble is as soon as these threads start to develop and get results everything seems to go quiet and introverted … I guess people just want to take every bodies input only for their own benefit.
I don't have much love of “lurkers” or “profiteers” in this area of “free energy” I'm only happy there isn't much profit any more …. tptb and their minions the investment banksters seem to take other routes to keep the cork in the bottle.... I despair when I see it again and again .. guys like EPD , John Hutchinson and many more still take the risk to try and get information out . Many have just been “snuffed” and still folks hesitate to hit the “send Button” anyway I digress .. the more idea's testing and reporting the quicker we get this done! That' s an interesting Idea a.king sort of reminisant of EPDs vibrating conversion machine which he talks about again here

The Dollard Mobile + Flux Capacitor - YouTube

[Turion]

Duncan,
Very, very interesting. I don't have any toroids lying around except extremely small ones and they are too big a pain to wrap, so I have ordered a couple to experiment with. My researching the things you brought up led me here:

Avramenko's Free Electrons Pump v1.0 by Jean-Louis Naudin

This, I believe, is a most interesting post in and of itself, but fits in with what we are all searching for. I feel like we are all nibbling around the edges of the same pie and eventually someone is going to take a bite and get bit of that dark chocolate filling. (My favorite)


Dave

[a.king21]

Duncan, your posted diagram is very similar to Richard Willis's Magnacoaster patent. Magnacoaster is shipping now BTW.
So the ou arises from the repeated gating of the Bloch wall. In the Benitez diagram which I posted, the capacitor is parallel to the coil - which is obviously also gating the Bloch wall.
So maybe Benitez was not quite right. Maybe the ou originates in the gating of the Bloch wall and the capacitor simply stores the energy and converts it to our conventional electricity.
This leads us to an important conclusion, and that is the core of the coil. It has to respond to mhz frequencies or the ou is lost. In Willis's case he specifically states in his patent that the output frequency is GREATER than the input frequency. This he calls an "echo" .
In Benitez's time the cores were designed to respond to high frequencies and this is the method adopted by Bedini in his multiple welding rod core recommendation.

[wsxian2]

Lurker responding

I have been following this thread for some time. As David said, I was a lurker.
But I finally decided to experiment on this since I am between jobs.

Attached is a diagram with what I think is being indicated from Post #1. Feel free to put it to post #1 if you want. Made in Libre Office Draw.

So this is what I have:
Two good batteries from a 24V scooter (both 12 volts). Bat 1, Bat 2
One Scooter motor attached to a tire via chain. Motor 1
One bad battery from another 24V scooter (12 volts - reading about 6.2 and would not charge or provide any useful energy). Bat 3 or "Bad Battery"
Another scooter motor (with sprocket) not connected to anything as the load. "Load" or Motor 2

I hooked up everything as I thought it should be from Post 1 - in this case just using Motor 1.
The motor did not work or turn over. Hours later nothing.
Tried again the next day and nothing even after hours of waiting.

Re-read post 1 and realized I need to put a load between the negative and positive posts of Battery 3! -DOH!

So that's when I hooked up Motor 2 as the "Load" across the terminals of Bat 3 and then Motor 1 and Motor 2 both ran immediately - this indicated that Bat 3 was not the "Bad Battery" we are looking for. -Drat!
Let them run for over an hour. At the end of the time Bat 3 was reading about 7.4 volts.

Today I had recharged Bat 1 and Bat 2 and hooked up Bat 3 again (but had not discharge it). Let it run for 1 hour and now I have 8.2 on Bat 3.

The measured voltage at Bat 3 was about 14 volts when both motors were running.
Voltage from Bat 1 to bat 2 was 25.6 at start. At end 25.4.

Since I was using two motor scooter motors I thought the loads were pretty well balanced.
However, when I reversed the two motors (i.e Motor 1 became Motor 2 and visa versa), the voltage on Bat 3 showed only about 6-7 volts with both motors running. This seems to indicate that for what ever reason, the two loads are not even which makes sense as the two motors are not identical and one does have to drive a tire.

Here is what I found when I increased the loads on Motor 1 and Motor 2 (I used a piece of wood and applied pressure to the motor sprocket of Motor 2 and applied pressure to the tire on Motor 1):

Motor 1 had very little torque and would stop very readily when I applied force to the tire. When I applied resistance to Motor 1, Motor 2 sped up and the voltage reading of Bat 3 went all the way up to 24 volts if I stalled Motor 1.

Motor 2 had a lot of torque as I could really press against the sprocket and cut into my board (grove it).
When I applied resistance to Motor 2, Motor 1 sped up and the voltage reading of Bat 3 went down (went down to 4 volts with as much pressure as I was going to put on the sprocket with my small board).

For verification of voltage and motors I hooked the individual motors up directly to 12 volts and neither motor turned, but when hooked up directly to 24 volts, the individual motors turned and at a higher speed than with the 3 bat system. More torque too. This seems to indicate that Motor 1, when hooked up to the 3 bat system, is getting about 24 volts otherwise it would not turn, but because the torque is low, the current running through it is not great.

Will keep trying to bring up the voltage on Bat 3 and make it a good battery.

Will also try to find a “Bad Battery."

That's all for now - reporting from the Far West in New Mexico near Los Alamos.

[Turion]

Welcome!

wsxian2,

Great to have you here and posting results. Every little bit helps. The drawing you made is correct, so you are doing everything right.

Here's some info that may help.

With the RIGHT bad battery the system will start after about 15 minutes WITHOUT a load on battery three. Any battery will start the thing up with a load on battery 3.

To check and see if a battery will work after you have waited at least 15 minutes and it hasn't started on its own, spin the motor by hand. If it starts, you can use that battery and will see some cool stuff. You probably won't get runs longer than 20 minutes without charging up battery 3 and discharging the primaries, but you can do a run, let it rest for a couple hours, do a run let it rest. I have done this for WEEKS at a time with a bad battery and my primaries, while they go down, always recover if I don't go over about 20 minutes.

The direction of rotation of your motor will MAKE A DIFFERENCE in most cases. Why, I couldn't tell you. Once you get a setup that is working, reverse the wires on the motor and you will see that it either speeds up or slows down. From what I have experienced you want the higher rpm configuration.

Balancing the load on the motor with the load on battery three isn't really a matter of having the same load on both. It is more like....getting them in synch with each other...which could mean a small load on one and a large load on the other. That's one of the reasons it is such a pain in the butt to accomplish.

Hope that helps, and thanks for giving this a shot.

Dave

[Duncan]

to be expected...

Duncan, your posted diagram is very similar to Richard Willis's Magnacoaster patent. Magnacoaster is shipping now BTW.
So the ou arises from the repeated gating of the Bloch wall. In the Benitez diagram which I posted, the capacitor is parallel to the coil - which is obviously also gating the Bloch wall.
So maybe Benitez was not quite right. Maybe the ou originates in the gating of the Bloch wall and the capacitor simply stores the energy and converts it to our conventional electricity.
This leads us to an important conclusion, and that is the core of the coil. It has to respond to mhz frequencies or the ou is lost. In Willis's case he specifically states in his patent that the output frequency is GREATER than the input frequency. This he calls an "echo" .
In Benitez's time the cores were designed to respond to high frequencies and this is the method adopted by Bedini in his multiple welding rod core recommendation.

On my own thread a King (which I seem to have abandoned for a while) I pointed out that all these systems are going to be related after all what’s the odds of of there being a free undiscovered energy source anyway ? Millions to one , what are the chances of several ?
As David is telling us we are probably (well certainly really) nibbling on the same pie.
How many patents could possibly be issued for doing the same thing ?

Even the mechanical systems .. the counterpoise between the sine wave and the linear wave is a/ the pendulum loads of stuff about that (like the transverse wave) and b/ the “whip-lash” try and find decent maths on that subject on the so called “mine of information” the www without those specific relationships you will not make a Besslar wheel spin. There is some rubbish on it .. a jolly good crack or something or the other .. jolly good ..Belly laugh I suspect!
A sure sign of tptb at work is the information isn’t available … so a simple mechanical action that’s been on the planet longer than we humans have isn’t taught ? If your into it mechanically “tis the dog that plays with the toys”In Besslers doggerel … the whip action and timing of the animals head, But then Bessler was what? An organ builder he knew all about harmonics and overtones … what they do … how they work how they relate to size and position in a way any modern musician could not hope to comprehend
Bessler made organs by hand as EPD describes here
The Science of Music by Eric Dollard (3 of 12) - YouTube
just as a point of interest and adding to EPDs wealth of information (if that’s possible) … the natural harmonic and overtone progression .. which is harmonics (evens) and odds (overtones) was altered for “best fit”to what you mathematically refer to as “ an octave “ by Isaac Newton he put the relationship in place in order to “best match” church bells. A guitarist may tell you she can “bend the string” not the point at all …. full thrutch with no octave constraint there ya go .. what's the octave span of a guitar ?
What a subject and I'm afraid to say I can't play so much as a dog whistle.

Wsxian2 great to see your having a go … perhaps you may be inclined to try something at the back of my mind and its this … I have for a while been half considering that gravity well in fact “inertia” is a key (as opposed to load for instance) so do you think you could contrive to upend your motor and add enough “dead weight” to the shaft somehow such that it can't start ? And then wait for some magic In other words force the static state by “mass” … not load that would be interesting indeed
In other words I suggest a distinction betwixt load and gravity if you get my drift

.

[Skeptic]

Suggested Over Unity Test

Hi Turion: So with your new Polaris, after determining its usable range under average controlled course conditions (Maybe 15-20 miles or so this time of year running in extended range mode?), maybe you would consider removing 2 of the 3 batteries and use them in a successful offline 3 battery test until you find a dead battery that will last a good amount of time, then return the 2 batteries to the Polaris (with the 3rd Polaris battery charged up), and see if the same range is available. This method of testing will have the advantage of not invalidating your Polaris warranty and will show very credible evidence of an over unity situation that is straight forward and clear cut. You must know by now that I do not believe that over unity exists in our universe, but that does not prevent me from wishing you well. I will take no joy if the test fails, but hope to set a high enough bar for over unity proof such that it will attract more qualified people to the effort. What do you think? Also - have you tried using a specific gravity tester on dead battery candidates to see if it can predict success? Since I'm quite certain of your sincerity, I will take your word on what you may find out.

[Duncan]

Hi Turion: So with your new Polaris, after determining its usable range under average controlled course conditions (Maybe 15-20 miles or so this time of year running in extended range mode?), maybe you would consider removing 2 of the 3 batteries and use them in a successful offline 3 battery test until you find a dead battery that will last a good amount of time, then return the 2 batteries to the Polaris (with the 3rd Polaris battery charged up), and see if the same range is available. This method of testing will have the advantage of not invalidating your Polaris warranty and will show very credible evidence of an over unity situation that is straight forward and clear cut. You must know by now that I do not believe that over unity exists in our universe, but that does not prevent me from wishing you well. I will take no joy if the test fails, but hope to set a high enough bar for over unity proof such that it will attract more qualified people to the effort. What do you think? Also - have you tried using a specific gravity tester on dead battery candidates to see if it can predict success? Since I'm quite certain of your sincerity, I will take your word on what you may find out.

1st post and a septic skeptic that we are supposed to "know by now"?
how does that work. how many AKAs do you have nothing to prove here its done and dusted as far as OU goes, as for the bike idea why don't you take a hike?

[Turion]

Skeptic,
The Polaris Ranger EV I have takes 8 batteries. The machine is located on my property in Northern California, while everything else is located on my property in San Jose, CA. two and a half hours away. I only go to the property on the weekends, and not every weekend. I happen to be going up there tomorrow, but I am not sure exactly how to do this test to ANYBODY'S satisfaction. The property I own there is very hilly, so any driving involves a lot of severe ups and downs. It is one of the reasons I bought the EV in the first place. To go back and forth between the two properties trying to do a test makes no sense and would take weeks. This is not a cop out, because I would gladly perform a bench test that I can control ALL WEEK LONG on my bench.

I would propose a different test. I could take two new batteries from the store, charge them to assure they are completely and fully charged, and then run a load of choice until those batteries have reached a certain point. (Run a 12 volt motor constantly until it stops running) Then recharge the batteries and do this again a couple times to get an average. I think we would agree that this is NOT the best thing to do with batteries and harms them somewhat when you run them below the 80% you are supposed to. In fact, it can turn them into two bad batteries, but that's ok too. I would run off one battery at a time and run at reduced, set rpm using a potentiometer to adjust rpm since I know it will run on slightly less that 12 volts when connected to the 3BGS setup.

I would then take those same two batteries, recharge them and add the third DEAD bad battery to the setup and run at the same reduced rpm in the 3BGS setup. I would only run 10 to 15 minutes at a time, using the off time to discharge the 3rd battery and let it return to a condition where it will work the correct way in the system. I would run it this way at the same rpm for as long as there is power in the primaries to do so. I would repeat this cycle over and over and over for days. If, at the end, I have not run significantly longer than in a standard setup I would conclude that there is nothing to see here. If, however, I have run for five or ten times longer than with the standard setup at the same speed, and the primaries are still charged, I would conclude that there is something to this.

Would that be an acceptable test??

If so, I have done that test several times over the last five years, and have NO PROBLEM doing it again, or some modified version of it. The problem is, I cannot do a CONTINUOUS run or the 3rd battery will become charged, "repaired", and the setup will NOT work. This is the ONLY thing that makes what we see difficult to prove to anyone. If we got continuous runs EVERYONE could see what we see with no problem at all.

-------------------------

In my opinion, the only REAL test would be to do something like using a motor to run a motor as a generator with the two new 12 volt batteries. Take the output of the generator into a storage device, like a huge cap or bank of caps. Run it until the batteries will no longer run the motor and then measure what has accumulated in the cap bank.

Now drain that cap bank, recharge the batteries and run the same setup on the 3BGS. Stop whenever you need to to let the 3rd battery be drained down, but keep going until what is in the cap or cap bank is far beyond what was generated by the two batteries running the motor and turning the generator. With something like this, you don't have to worry about rpm's, amps in, amps out, blah, blah, blah. All you have to do is measure which setup deposited the most power in the cap bank and how much more did it deposit. People from all over the country could take two stock razor scooter motors and the same kinds of off the shelf batteries and repeat and verify the data. Would that satisfy the scientists and skeptics out there?

I have only done THIS test once,and it was a really long time ago. It should use new, fully charged batteries, and you should have at least three sets to get an average. The thing is, they can be the small 3.5 amp hour batteries. They don't have to be the big ones.

Dave

[Skeptic]

Over Unity testing

Turion - Thanks for the reply - sorry, I wasn't sure which model Polaris you bought - always wanted one of those! I'm not sure from your description if the tests you've done are what I was thinking of. It might be nice to test the 2 good batteries without fully discharging them - perhaps just run them down to a specified voltage. The test I had in mind would have 3 phases, 2 of which are offline from the 3 battery setup. This would isolate the testing from the voltage variations inherent in the 3 battery test and the intermittent nature of the 3 battery setup. Also, it could allow you to run the 3 battery test in the "sweet spot" the best way you know how. So phase one is pretty much what you presented with the 2 batteries. Phase 2 is running the best (and longest) 3 battery setup possible - it could take multiple tries but that will not affect the test. Phase 3 happens when the 3 battery setup will run no more. The 2 good batteries are now tested again to see if they now can match the performance of phase 1. If you have not done this, it might be helpful. Let me know what you think!

Duncan, Turion and I have been talking back and forth for a while on another
board. I switched over because it was more appropriate here and I would not like having a reply removed by an unreasonable moderator. Since my "know by now" remark was clearly to David, how is it that you take offense for everyone else calling me names? Nothing to prove here? I disagree. Over unity is a big deal of massive proportion. It would free humanity of the energy crisis not to mention break the known laws of physics that have not had a single exception in hundreds of years. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". That proof cannot be an internet video, inventions that cannot operated by anyone without the inventor around, patents that never require proof in a working model, rumors of great plans from dead inventors. That's what's different here - willingness to test in the open. Many times in the past, inventors in many fields have not been rigorous enough in their testing and proof. A friendly skeptic can help avoid this. No matter what you may say, I will never insult anyone here no matter what. That's a promise to everyone here.

[Turion]

So, if I understand correctly.... (sometimes I am rather dense when it comes to this stuff. I make no claims to being some kind of genius. I just got extremely lucky one day)

Phase 1 would be to run the motor for as long as possible on two batteries, basically until she runs no more.

Phase 2 would be to recharge these batteries and run these batteries in the 3 BGS for as long as I can without drawing down on the primaries, letting them rest, etc in short runs, doing whatever and document the amount of time they ran the motor.

Phase 3 would be to then to reconnect the motor to the two batteries (without recharging) and see if they ran for as long as they did in phase 1???

Essentially attempting to see if the time the motor ran off the 3BGS was "free" time??

That I can do. It will probably be Monday before I can get around to it. I am packing up right now to leave for the weekend, and I would want to get the batteries all charged up and measured before I began phase 1.

Dave

[Skeptic]

Over Unity Testing

Yes - That is correct! Showing fully charged batteries at phase 3 would be both impressive, straight forward, and easy to duplicate - the stuff of wide acceptance! If successful, this would really attract the kind of attention leading to acceptance by the established scientific community. What university could resist such a test?

Have a great weekend and thanks for listening.

[shylo]

Well

The test runs I've done , Show a longer run time

[Turion]

shylo,
We just have to convince folks to try this for themselves. That's the only way they are ever really going to believe the results of the tests. But we can keep trying.

[Duncan]

insult indeed ..

Skeptic this is in no way ready for scientific scrutiny in the way you indicate . The reason for that is its not reproducible , when I say that of course I mean 100% producible under laboratory conditions .we find ourselves in the Fleischmann–Pons situation. somtimes a diamond
Even were the glitches to be resolved then we find ourselves in the Steorm / Oboe situation 200
Two Hundred proved over unity devises delivered to universities around the world …. they confirmed the phenomena ,
BEST FREE ENERGY MUSIC VID EVER - YouTube
so where's the device ? Why don’t we have it ? If you think this thread requires that kind of help from academia your very wrong. The object is to make it stable make it simple and get it out there if there's recompense to be made I'm sure no ones going to bilk at the idea but I think we all have a clear idea of how much use academia and the scientific community who are run and paid for by tptb are going to be to such a machine.
I of course didn't realise you had been discussing this on another forum and that “you had previous” I'm afraid I view sceptics with a very jaundice eye for reasons John Bedini explains very well in this clip.
1 watt challenge.wmv - YouTube
It was also pointed out to me by no lesser power than P.J.Kelly by methods I wont go into just how many “detractors” appear again and again under different AKAs,
Just as John points out you can run a COP+1 machine in front of a real sceptic and they still will not believe . That is because a real sceptic is mentally damaged
There are none so blind as those who will not see
added to that of course free energy forums by there very nature have many paid sceptics
and lots of dis - information . Agents are well paid and well organised.
So now we come to the sceptics requests … which generally end up in a endless load of twaddle about measuring equipment and waveforms and such like.
Unfortunately it also wastes time that is better spent experimenting or researching. You see I am rather of the opinion that those who know perfectly well that its impossible and can't be done should have the good grace to leave the people alone who are actually doing it.
The people on this thread know what volts amps power and energy is all about and have measured this equipment many times it isn't just slightly COP+1 its many times.
So now we come to the sceptic … the mental case … what can be done .. a video ?
That's the worst demonstration of all easily rigged and of course is, time and time again by paid dis information agents on you tube.
Paper work and figures can be easily falsified. And so they are to no avail either.
So what would a sceptic be doing an a free energy forum anyway ? Surly a total waste of time investigating something that can't be done ? The thrust of this particular thread is a big percentage of the members investigating the phenomena have experienced measured and tested the effect Many times. And some many hundreds I dare say, It is not the validity that is in question and the idea that you think you have “a better test” that will prove every one else wrong is quite noxious.
That is all not only “done and dusted” its very well polished by lots of people, the fact that you are damaged and cannot believe is a different matter altogether. Having said that were you to get a few batteries and a little motor and try it yourself .. well who knows ?
In the mean time the force of this thread is not trying to prove anything but rather to stabilise what we have all seen measured and know is happening.
Whilst recruiting open mined newcomers to try the effect themselves and see if they can help resolve the glitches.
I really don't think a sceptic has any rhyme or reason to be on a free energy forum and to be honest I find sceptics in the room as glitches are being resolved about as much use as T its on a kipper.
Why not take up fishing ? Or as suggested before take a hike? Which is a suggestion and not a personal insult by the way(well pehaps just a tad)