Bedini's Kromrey Converter

[baroutologos]

I am sad to report the fundamentaly flawed energy measurements regarding Kromreay's Converter wattage output at low ohmic resistances, but on the other hand we cannot live upon wishes. Still if i am mistaken somehow i wait someone to answer it.

Anyway, i still believe this converter suitably arranged is a path to OU


question & Gambit:

Can you tell me please, what kind of motor have you mount? DC permanent type? Wattage?


Regards,
Baroutologos

[dambit]

Can you tell me please, what kind of motor have you mount? DC permanent type? Wattage?


Regards,
Baroutologos

Hi,

These are the stats for the DC drive motor ia am using.

Voltage (V)
No load 12.0
Speed (RPM) 9700
Current (AMP) 1.3
Operating Range (V) 6-18

At Stall
Torque (kg/cm) 6.0
Current (AMP) 57

At Max Efficiency
Efficiency (%) 73
Power (W) 52
Speed (RPM) 8490
Torque (kg/cm) .60
Current (A) 6.0



Cheers,

Steve

[baroutologos]

Thanks Dambit for your promt reply!

Whow, it seems to be a super-motor! 56 watts i suppose are enough for the job.
Perhaps any link for on-line vendors?


Regards,
Baroutologos

[dambit]

Hi Baroutologos,

I got mine through a company here in Australia called Jaycar Electronics. They have a website Jaycar Electronics - Better. More Technical. and do online sales. It's a very cheep motor, it only cost me $24.

Cheers,

Steve

[MileHigh]

Baroutologos:

> I am sad to report the fundamentaly flawed energy measurements regarding Kromreay's Converter wattage output at low ohmic resistances, but on the other hand we cannot live upon wishes. Still if i am mistaken somehow i wait someone to answer it.

In theory there is nothing wrong or surprising about increased current output into a lower-valued resistor. However, like I said, there are so many flaws in the report that it makes every piece of data in the report questionable.

There is a big follow-up question: How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustain 630 watts of power dissipation? It would be a significant piece of work to do that. A 1000-watt toaster has a resistance of about 14 ohms. A 120-volt-2400-watt oven element has a resistance of about 6 ohms. How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustan at least 630 watts of power dissipation? Why don't they mention it in the report?

> The correction factor is to correct the performance regardings amperes going to battery from convetional charger to Kromrey converter. Thats acceptable till proven.

The correction factor is a flawed concept.

[kent_elyue]

> How did they make a 0.63 ohm resistor that can sustan at least 630 watts of power dissipation? Why don't they mention it in the report?

When dealing with negative (time-reversed) energy, one is in effect creating a "Negative Resistor" and therefore one does not need to dissipate anything. How does one accurately calculate anything when one's test equipment isn't really capable of accurately measuring what is really happening anyway? For example, measuring amps when one should be measuring local environmental heat change is only going to serve to confuse everyone.

Personally, I think the knowledge comes from doing - NOT from arguing about it. 'Nuf said.

[MileHigh]

Kent: The report alleges that the output is 20 volts DC at 31.7 amps from a full-wave bridge rectifier into a conventional resistor load of 0.63 ohms. They are talking real power, not "negative energy" or a "negative resistor." That's one big hot resistor that you could cook breakfast on. A standard biggish 1-watt resistor that you might see people experimenting with in a video clip would blow up in a fraction of a second at that power level. The whole premise of this forum is to make proper measurements when you experiment in order to create something that can be replicated and verified for the benefit of mankind.

[Shamus]

It certainly is puzzling until you realize that they didn't measure the current, they simply measured the voltage and used Ohm's law to calculate the power. The results then are not so surprising. And I would bet you a shiny new nickel that if they measured the amps in that circuit it wouldn't have shown 32 amps on the output side.

But of course, then, Ohm's law is out the window as the equation no longer balances. Now we're swimming through some murky waters! So then the conclusions are either the measurements they took were wrong (certainly possible) or they were measuring something other than normal electric current (also possible).

[baroutologos]

Ok people, enough said about the Mueller report.

Let people make the Konverter, and i am very confident that all we have much to learn from this procedure!

Special thanks to pioneers (replicators) here for the effort, time and money on this purpose.

Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: I wait with anxiety results!
PS2: thank Gambit for motor supplier

[Hoppy]

Kent: The report alleges that the output is 20 volts DC at 31.7 amps from a full-wave bridge rectifier into a conventional resistor load of 0.63 ohms. They are talking real power, not "negative energy" or a "negative resistor." That's one big hot resistor that you could cook breakfast on. A standard biggish 1-watt resistor that you might see people experimenting with in a video clip would blow up in a fraction of a second at that power level. The whole premise of this forum is to make proper measurements when you experiment in order to create something that can be replicated and verified for the benefit of mankind.

Yes, you nail it here! This machine is claimed to be a negative energy device but the original testers were quite happy to use conventional positive energy measurements to prove their claim. It is now for them to answer the critics of their procedures and methods in conventional EE terms, not just remain silent, hiding behind the negative energy shroud shouting - 'but you can't measure it'!

Hoppy

[Joit]

Yes, you nail it here! This machine is claimed to be a negative energy device but the original testers were quite happy to use conventional positive energy measurements to prove their claim. It is now for them to answer the critics of their procedures and methods in conventional EE terms, not just remain silent, hiding behind the negative energy shroud shouting - 'but you can't measure it'!

Hoppy

Sorry, but i dont think, the conventional EE Terms can explain it.
And even when you work on such Devices, you have to complete Think different to the 'conventional'.
And most dont get even a Patent on theyr Things, because they cannot explain it how they would hear it,
and thats just the lack of knowledge and understanding with our conventional Theories and Theoreticians.
Or can someone explain with a conventional Theorie why some of this Motors speeding up, when you put load on them.
They should more explain, why they still use the wrong Poles, instead correct them.

[baroutologos]

@ Joit,

Motor speed-up huh? Have you ever experience it? I have it. Dambit have it. Many people i know have it. It not mystical, even though not in conventional teachings.

IMO, again, this is must be the key to OU. Speeding up with input down

Regards,
Baroutologos

if you want to learn more about speeding up see http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-watson-3.html , have some patience and go through the topic. Take your time.

[Hoppy]

Sorry, but i dont think, the conventional EE Terms can explain it.
And even when you work on such Devices, you have to complete Think different to the 'conventional'.
And most dont get even a Patent on theyr Things, because they cannot explain it how they would hear it,
and thats just the lack of knowledge and understanding with our conventional Theories and Theoreticians.
Or can someone explain with a conventional Theorie why some of this Motors speeding up, when you put load on them.
They should more explain, why they still use the wrong Poles, instead correct them.

Hi Joit

I don't need to build a Kromrey converter to demonstrate a motor speeding up under load. Its easy enough to do - See Thane Heins's thread on the Overunity.com forum. He is not saying that its caused by negative energy and cannot be explained by conventional electrical principles. The reasoning for this effect is discussed in this thread and is worth reading end to end.

Hoppy

[Shamus]

Does it also explain things like cold behind the magnets, powering a load with a tiny wire, being able to hold touch the ends of the wires without getting shocked, or cooling of a charging battery? If so, that would be cool (no pun intended!).

Again I state that if you took the measurements in the Mueller document (not just voltage, but voltage *and* current) that V = IR would no longer balance, and then you're in trouble from a conventional standpoint. Perhaps they would hold looking at things from instantaneous point of view (i.e., integration), I don't know. I wasn't there and they don't explain their methodology for how they took their measurements.

I mean really, questioning things is one thing, but this constant and unrelenting skepticism is really starting to wear thin. Science is supposed to be all about testing and observation; where are yours? I'd say that if you aren't building *and* testing then you are contributing nothing to this thread. I would respectfully ask that you please start another thread and post your skepticism there like Richard did with his SSG thread so that people who actually *are* building and doing tests can share their observations without having to wade through a bunch of unrelated posts (that goes for pro as well as con!).

[xpskid]

@Joit If you look at Steve's scope traces you see spiked curve rather than a gradual shift. The faster the motor turns the sharper the gradiant gets. The nature of a flux gate or magnetic lock is to self close once the flux path is near completion. Until it is near completion the flux is going perpendicular to the coil. So you have an unresisted approach and a strong attraction once you get there. The strengthened attraction outweighs the cemf of the coils on approach. Coincidently the spikes we are seeing are from the breaking of the flux gate. Now if you figure that the magnetic arrangement is nnss. Traditional theories say that when you break from the first magnet with the coil shorted it would be attracted to the second one as well at the first. When spun fast enough, the field collapses closer to the second magnet creating emf rather than cemf.

(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