Bedini's Kromrey Converter

[xpskid]

I am building and I am reporting...
I don't mind others offering a few suggestions as to configurations or observations picked up from the DVD or other reliable sources, but I don't have time to justify why I'm interested in building this.

I love to experiment and build stuff, so I'm leaving it there....

Regards,

Timm

[redeagle]

(Correct me if I get this wrong Steve)
When you try to interpret Steve's trace, I believe he build a six pole machine which should be NSNSNS, a four pole machine would be NNSS

Timm

I think you are right Timm, I went back and looked at the picture of the generator that I was thinking about. It was someone elses. I am going to retract my previous post until we can get a confimation on which arrangement that was a scope trace of.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

Matt

[Joit]

Hoppy, which Thread, can you give me a Direction?
I am not often at OU.com and dont have much overview about the Posts there.
Afterwards i think, you been joking about the Explanation, and think, i better had been silent.

And yes, i did build such a Thing with one Coil and simple 4 N-S Magnets, what been 2x2 stick together and it did speed up at very low Pulses. I put a mechanical Load on it, to slow it down, but it increase slowly at speed.
My Coils been wound some different, with 76-100- then allways 6 Turns slower down back to 74.
I dont think, there is the Key to OU, but its maybe a part of it.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy, which Thread, can you give me a Direction?
I am not often at OU.com and dont have much overview about the Posts there.
Afterwards i think, you been joking about the Explanation, and think, i better had been silent.

And yes, i did build such a Thing with one Coil and simple 4 N-S Magnets, what been 2x2 stick together and it did speed up at very low Pulses. I put a mechanical Load on it, to slow it down, but it increase slowly at speed.
My Coils been wound some different, with 76-100- then allways 6 Turns slower down back to 74.
I dont think, there is the Key to OU, but its maybe a part of it.

Joit

The thread is: Thane Heins Perepiteia

Hoppy

[dambit]

I think you are right Timm, I went back and looked at the picture of the generator that I was thinking about. It was someone elses. I am going to retract my previous post until we can get a confimation on which arrangement that was a scope trace of.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

Matt

Hi Guys,

I should have clarified which arrangement I was testing for that scope trace. For that particular image I was only using 2 magnet blocks. N-S. I had removed the other 4 as I was taking everything back to basics. When all six blocks are in place the AC wave form looks like a regular sine wave. Having said that, I didn't have the scope setup when I had my original coil arrangement exhibiting the speed up when shorted effect, so I can't compare the difference.

Cheers,

Steve.

[xpskid]

Data

Configuration #4
I rewound the coils using ~ 130 turns of bifilar #18 AWG magnet wire. I did not have enough room on my spool for trifilar, and thought bifilar would still assist in lowering the resistance.
John advised to use Copper/Carbon brushes to lower the resistance. Since the only low resistance brushes I could find (Silver/Carbon) were $45 apiece, I thought I’d try braided copper since this is just a test device and not meant for a long term show piece.

Resistance (total system, across wires at FWB, through brushes) = 0.5 ohms
Inductance (total) 247 µH

I use the coil configuration (Figure 1), slip > coil 1 >coil 2 > coil3 > coil4 > slip
1500 rpm (12v) = 7.5 V DC
= 10.8 V AC
3000 rpm (24v) = 17.8 V DC
= 21.1 V AC
Amp draw with no load = 4.3 A
Amp draw with output shorted = 5.7 A

I did not observe any of the characteristics shown in the DVD.

Configuration #5
Trying to figure out where to go next …..

[ren]

Timm have you changed the brushes recently? Or are they the same size as the ones used for all past experiments?

[xpskid]

Timm have you changed the brushes recently? Or are they the same size as the ones used for all past experiments?

Hi Ren,

Yes... this was a new brush set-up. I was using graphite/carbon brushes (images in earlier post), and John suggested they may add too much resistance and suggested copper/carbon brushes. Everything I found was expensive ($45 per) so I thought I'd try used braided copper (desolder)(new image above). They aren't a long term solution but they're a low resistance short term solution.
What I don't understand is I had the amp load delta down to 0.2 amps in the first configuration after moving to an aluminum shaft, but this one didn't perform as well (0.8 amp delta). In the video John always prefaced his statements with "when wound correctly"... so I'm thinking that is the key, but unsure what to try.

I still need to think about this somemore but thought my inductance figure might give me some insight into impedance at the higher frequency and pulses.

Regards,

Timm

[dllabarre]

Configuration #4
I rewound the coils using ~ 130 turns of bifilar #18 AWG magnet wire. I did not have enough room on my spool for trifilar, and thought bifilar would still assist in lowering the resistance.

How did you connect the bifilar wires on each coil to the other coil on the same armature and from the top armature to the bottom armature?

Did you just connect the 2 wires together on each end of each coil and run 1 wire from coil to coil?

DonL

[linesrg]

Sceptic or realist?

Guys,

'We' are building a Kromrey and I'm not a sceptic as I've probably built more derivatives of rotor and solidstate SG's than a considerable number of other people.

I have 2off 6" aluminium rotored devices and more solid state devices with every modification JB has revealed to such as the OTG group so with respect to other builders here I am in a position to talk with some experience behind me.

I've charged up to 1350Ahr battery banks consisting of 12off Trojan T105's.

I would love to confirm some of the clues we're directed to look for on this device. A colleagues build of a Ron Cole motor has shown that this type of device will increase speed when shorted out so I don't doubt that the Kromrey will.

We will be determining the actual temperature of this 'cold air' using a highly sophisticated device called a thermometer which will be corrected for the effective wind speed. Such devices are somewhat less subjective than the back of the hand test.

Equally battery case temperature will be determined using a thermometer.

The No.1 question I have is that 'we' won't know if we have succeeded in replicating the device that John has shown as we have no definitive test to copy i.e. drive the converter with a known voltage/ amperage for a set period than apply a known load to the battery charged.

Given John changed the target figure between 120 and 180% during the DVD it still wasn't clear what he meant by OU.

As I understand it in the past OU has been defined by John as the comparison between what goes in to the battery and what you get out (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Thus my understanding is that the reason why John says nobody is intererested until you hit 300% is that the average conversion efficiency of such as an SG is only circa 35% and thus you'd need 300% 'OU' to be ahead of the game.

Hopefully in due course we'll be bale to put some figures to all this.

Can I suggest somebody asks John for more details of the materials used in the build of a Kromrey??????????????????????????????

REgards

Richard

[Mark]

DVD
ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM

A Documentary Series. Volume 10.
THE KROMREY CONVERTER (G-FIELD GENERATOR)
Dialogues with JOHN BEDINI
2 HOUR 4 MINUTES

Well, here it is, John Bedini's legendary “G-field generator” from the early 1980s in all its glory running on the bench and putting out more power than John is putting in. And ejecting a stream of freezing cold air from its interior, where one would “normally” expect heat would be produced and dissipated.
In this DVD John Bedini, painstakingly traces the “G-field generator's” pedigree and history all the way back to the late Professor Raymond Kromrey, and John then presents the theory, the circuit diagram, what to do, and what not to do, to build one that works. Watch, too, how John shows the motor running under load with the circuit only completed by a strand of wire the diameter of a human hair—an impossibility with conventional EM energy.
For the practically minded, this DVD is all anyone could ask for if one was contemplating building an overunity electrical motor.
Is this fanciful talk? Well, John's manufacturing and production team was rapidly infiltrated and destroyed, and M.I.T. bought up the last remaining twelve operational units from John, never to see the light of day again, so you can draw your own conclusions.
Also included is the archival footage from the celebrated 1984 “Town Hall Meeting” with Bill Jenkins, in which John springs this technology on an unsuspecting world. This DVD is truly historic.

"John then presents the theory, the circuit diagram, what to do, and what not to do, to build one that works. For the practically minded, this DVD is all anyone could ask for if one was contemplating building an overunity electrical motor."

I believe John is genuine but, I think anyone that has purchased this DVD deserves a little more info.

[xpskid]

How did you connect the bifilar wires on each coil to the other coil on the same armature and from the top armature to the bottom armature?

Did you just connect the 2 wires together on each end of each coil and run 1 wire from coil to coil?

DonL

Don,

I terminated each coil (Bi & Tri filar) and then connected to the next using 14 gauge copper wire.

Timm

[MileHigh]

Xpskid: You made a few basic measurements with configuration #4 and you are implying that you want to move onto a new configuration. Am I correct in assuming that you have a full setup with an electric motor powering your magnet-coil configuration and it is a reasonably faithful replication of a Kromrey Convertor? If yes, why change configurations? Can you come up with a plan for making measurements on the setup? What are the characteristics shown in the DVD that you are trying to observe beyond the "cold air" effect? Did you get any cold air?

[Lambda]

JLN's replication with comments from John Bedini

I've read posts on this site for some time, and this is my first post. Anyhow, I hope I'm not posting information that has already been brought to the groups attention, but I found it to be of value. I myself am in the process of replicating the Kromrey Converter, and am having trouble getting mine "inside of the bell curve". My current build is one in which the magnets rotate and the coils are static, and the next one is in the process of being machined by a friend and myself, and will resemble John's in EFTV 10. What seems to be the most difficulty is tuning of the coils & RPM to get it inside this bell curve. I believe we need to identify the criteria in which you know you are running not only inside this curve, but once there, how to optimize the coils and RPM of the motor to reach the peak. Back in 1996, Jean of JLN labs replicated Cole's G-field generator. What I found that would be applicable is John Bedini's comments at the end. Jean's replication and results can be found here:

G-Field V1.1 Test Report

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

Comments from JOHN BEDINI :

<<

Their is a difference between My G-Field and Jeans, Go to My section and look at the pictures I have put up there in motors and ideas, You will see that My Machine has four poles with permeate magnets on the out side. The G-Field is a flux gate generator the curve in which it works is very important along with the windings most of these generators will at some point be 120% or better, but it must be matched to the load. It runs on a Bell Curve so You must be at the top of this curve at the correct speed, I have suggested to Jean that he uses a brushless motor and a non- magnetic shaft this is very important. the 10 inch generator on my page uses a motor that only draws 1amp or 12 watts at 12 volts the output from this proto-type generator is 14.5 volts at 5 amps = 72.5 watts, But 2.5 amps moves back inside the generator so you are left with 36.25 watts to back charge the batteries.

When building this Generator You must build it with Transformer laminations or You will have Eddie current losses in the pole pieces this will cost you 10 watts or better. The way to get the current out of the Generator ,You must"Tri-filer wind the coils" this lowers the Impedance of the coils, The coils are in series on this machine. As You can see that 1/2 the power moves back into the generator you must get this out of the coils "BY LOWERING THE COIL IMPEDANCE" and matching to the load you want to power. One more thing that I might add to are discussion is that when the G-Field is operating correctly the motor current must move down under load to 1/2 the power input, as You can see now the power input drops to 6 watts . "Ron Cole's Test were done under full DC conditions, The G-Field output "MUST BE FULLY RECTIFIED AND FILTERED TO PURE DC".

I hope You understand what I have said here, because this is why they have all failed at making this Machine.

John Bedini

>>

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

I hope this is of use to the group. (As they say, the devil is in the details...)

Kind Regards,

Michael Hess

[kent_elyue]

possibly relevant info from Kromrey's patent

The patent cited in the video is Kromrey's Patent #3374376. In reading the patent again I picked up on a couple things. I know John said generically that the patent was wrong, but I will cite the points here in case they are possibly relevant to successful replication.

Point #1: It is claimed that laminations are used in the pole pieces (stator), and in the armature pieces. The patent does stipulate which direction the laminations are to be stacked. The exact wording (starting in Column 2, line 24) is this: "The armatures... may consist in essence of highly permeable foils whose principle dimension is perpendicular to the rotor axis." I assume the "principle dimension" to be the length.

Point #2: The ends of the armature pieces are curved to match the concave surfaces of the pole pieces such that the air gap is constant throughout rotation.

Point #3: The sum of the arcs of the four poles have a sum totaling 90 degrees of rotation. This means that each arc covers 22.5 degrees of rotation.

Point #4: It is claimed that the power output does not change linearly with speed of the rotor. Column 4, line 62 onward states that the power output did not drop substantially even with a 25% reduction in rotor speed, and in another test the output did not change substantially over the range of 1600 rpm down to 640 rpm.

Perhaps these points are worthy of consideration.