Bedini's Kromrey Converter

[NoNeed]

The Ohmic "Sweet Spot"

Hello Baroutologos


> • Anti-Lentz effect – The motor should draw less current when under load
That is a fairly complicated thing and it would be great if somebody really investigates it. In general terms, you would expect lower current consumption for when the generator output is shorted, and when it is open circuit. That's because in both cases no power is being transfered into the load. Somewhere between zero ohms load and infinite ohms load there is a "sweet spot" resistive value for the whole motor/convertor/load system that would put maximum power into the load and therefore draw the most current from the motor. So will the Kromrey convertor exhibit radically different performance curves than a conventional motor/generator in this case? I realize that the replicators might not want to take it this far with respect to making measurements, but you can always do some bacis investigations and then make some infrences.


I believe I might be able to shed some insight into the "Sweet Spot" you speak of and why at such a low resistance 0.63 ohms such a huge increase
in negative power output results. It all comes down to impedance matching or resonance, just like tesla discovered. Resonance is natures hidden jem. Find it and the amount of power transfer available is limited only by your setup.

Now when I saw the numbers a question appeared in my mind and I quickly went back to my basic electronics textbooks from college, and found this link as well.

Online Parallel Resistor Calculator

John Bedini, estimates that the resistance of the trifilar windings on each coil is approx 0.4 ohms with four of these in series that gives us a total resistance of approx 1.6 ohms okay that's a given and understood.

The question now is why at 0.63 ohm load resistance was the output so high?

When you plug in the numbers to a parallel resistive calculation you get this

"parallel resistive calculation"
1.6 ohms Total Resistance and 0.63 ohms load resistance gives you a
total system resistance of approx 0.45 ohms!

This total resistance is extremely close to the resistance of a single trifilar coil and is within the realm of now impedance matching the entire circuit, which is a desired effect.
In simple radio theory a superhetrodyne receiver works on the same primciple impedance match your antenna with the RF Oscillator and you get the best SWR or (Standing Wave Ratio) or AKA Power Output
sorry for the geek speak

So to conclude you now have five resistors in a "closed parallel loop" that are all matched at approx 0.4 ohms.

In any future build you want to try and find this sweet spot simply by doing a standard parallel circuit calculation, whatever your coil resistance's are.
Make sure that each coil is exactly the same and then calculate what your load resistor should be to match the other four to obtain the best result.

I've heard that this effect is actually referred to as a "Lenz Law Clamp"

For anyone's curiosity. I have watched the video #10 and was completely shocked by what I saw, and I'm am currently building a Kromrey Converter
as well so yes I am a builder.

I think everyone on this forum is doing a great job at
So as a good friend of mine told me, Keep it up your on to something!


Thanks Again

NoNeed

"Why burn fuel when there's NoNeed"

[dambit]

Hi All,

Well I hate to say it, but I have tried every wiring combination I can think of and I am still unable to repeat my initial results. I am officially stumped.

I haven't given up, but I think I'll rest it for a little bit while I refresh my mind.

Cheers,

Steve

(secretly wishing Bedini would for once give a wiring digram)

[pneuphysics]

Pneuphysics: Sorry, but it looks to me like the scope capture on the right is an example of when you have miswired the coils so that they are not adding together. Instead they are subtracting from each other. The clue to this is that the voltage scale on the left scope capture is 1 volt per division, and the voltage scale on the right scope capture is 0.1 volts per division. Since output power is proportional to the square of the voltage, the setup for the right scope capture can only produce 1/100th the power of the setup for the left scope capture.

You still get an output waveform becasue it is almost impossible for both coils to output exactly the same voltage at the same time. You can see that one of your magnetic flux paths couples better and dominates over the other flux path because you are not seeing any inverted fly-by waveforms. You can also see how one coil is slightly different from the other coil because you have alternating "high" and "low" fly-by waveforms.

The jpg on the right is wired like John shows in the video, not my way. The jpg on the left is wired the way I have gotten results in the past.


Pneuphysics

[xpskid]

Hi All,

Well I hate to say it, but I have tried every wiring combination I can think of and I am still unable to repeat my initial results. I am officially stumped.

Steve,

I'm in a lull at the moment too.
Before I try another configuration, I thought I'd step back and heed some of Steve C's advise and do some single coil tests.. plus watch DVD 11 and see if I can pick up any magnetic field insight.

Food for thought.... please send me any ideas to include in the DOE.
Build a small coil I can pulse as a reference.
Wind one end of a (Kromrey) armature pulse it with N and S fields and measure the response. Variables: CW / CCW winds, start wind shaft side outward, outside inward.

The thought would be to verify a configuration to sum voltages, determine any differences in wind direction both circular and direction along the armature axis (Pneuphysics), etc. before chosing the next configuration.

2 things still puzzle me...
First
Kromrey uses 2 coils per iron bar (due to shaft)
Ron Cole used 2 coils per bar on G-Field
G-Field at Town Hall used ?? coils per bar
John's patent generator which uses a single spinning magnet uses 2 coils per bar
Why ? Does he need to leave any open area around the blotch wall ? or does he need to pulse the poles differently on either end in order to pulse the blotch wall ?

Second
John's comments at the Town Hall meeting where he states "In order to produce this type of energy, you must produce 2 figure 8's" and instructs his assistant to trace the figure 8's for the audience.

Timm

[pneuphysics]

Nice comparison to help answer Steve's question !!

Does John method produce similar effects ? The speed increase/ amp reduction ? I'd be curious because the second trace doesn't appear to have the negitive pole reversal ?

Some of John's latter devices use a single magnet and always completed the flux path in the same direction ? However he started adding additional windings to the iron bars which he used a battery to power. He may have set the opposing fields with the battery, then fiipped it back with the single magnet.

Timm


Timm

Hi Timm,

No, if i wired it like I saw in the video - pretty sure - then no effects including no charging. Don't know why.... Bedini way.


Pneuphysics

[pneuphysics]

pneuphysics:

I have a question regarding your schematic in post #328, "Kromrey vs Gfield.jpg". What is the difference in the waveform output between 1) wiring the G-field as you have drawn, and 2) reversing the leads on coil number two?

In other words, you have drawn it wired this way: Top Left=out, Top right connected to Bottom Left, Bottom Right=out. What does the waveform look like if you wire it this way: Top Left=out, Top Right connected to Bottom Right, Bottom Left=out?

Is that what you've shown with the two scope shots in post #330, "The way mine are wired Crossed.JPG" and "Wired like John shows in Video.JPG"?

(Words are so inadequate sometimes, aren't they?)

Hi Kent,

Yep Top right to bottom right produces zip - nothing. you are correct. You are also right on the Words - the words do not always add up to whats in my head.


Pneuphysics

[pneuphysics]

New test results

Here is a spreadsheet with test results today, all day. Hope it helps someone. What I did basically was start with 1 strand of top coil wired in series with 1 strand of the bottom coil wired like jpg on left in post 328? Took readings then added another strand from top and bottom until all strands were in a big serial config generating over 300 vac PP. Wave shape looked the same for all. I will reserve my comments. Just raw data.

Each coil pair is 1.6 ohms x 4 pairs = total of 6.4 ohms when all are in series.


Pneuphysics

[xpskid]

Steve,

I'm in a lull at the moment too.
Before I try another configuration, I thought I'd step back and heed some of Steve C's advise and do some single coil tests.. plus watch DVD 11 and see if I can pick up any magnetic field insight.

... and, I need to play with the PC/USB Cheapo O'scope when it arrives this week << The hugee is my oscope.
Sorry pneuphysics... couldn't affort the $2.5K scope (kids), I'll leave the really fast events to you !!

Timm

[pneuphysics]

... and, I need to play with the PC/USB Cheapo O'scope when it arrives this week << The hugee is my oscope.
Sorry pneuphysics... couldn't affort the $2.5K scope (kids), I'll leave the really fast events to you !!

Timm

No problem Timm I have been there

Let me know how it works,
Pneuphysics

[baroutologos]

@Pneumaphysics,

Am i reading correct? 33000 rpm? Whoa! COOL. I want that!

yes, you are right. If you blindly follow any OU machine making instructions, chances are you fail. Patents, videos, explainations are concepts given for us to experiment and find out how to put things together. No working models specs. At least not described as they really are (physically) or they would be hundreds of them around already. (common sense)

@ Noneed

I have not in anyway reached in any definite conclusion, but the overall idea is what you say. DC resistance kills "acceleration" performance and forces this type of generator to behave as a normal draggy one.
Causes still unknown. Speculations too many.
By the way it is suggested that there is a sweet spot that these type of genys will perform at OU in considerable "COP"s. In the pursue of this spot i have invested too much (As Bedini calls it bell shape, the top of the Bell for a given layout - not experienced yet)

According my experience those are key factors to obtain accelaration... Coil Impedance should be considerable not minute and frequency.
Bear in mind that large impedance in real life conductors comes with high resistance. (which effectively kills the effect)
You can compensate low impedance (hence low resistance) by increasing rpm. (10000 or 20000 is not bad idead! dreadful maybe) A rough rule of thumb of mine so far is that considerable voltage should be developed as ,say, 250-500 volts ac.
Those i know so far (experienced).

By the way, the Muller (Kromrey) report output you mention, i think its fundamentally flawed.


Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: still waiting for the flux question reply

[StevanC]

Here is a spreadsheet with test results today, all day. Hope it helps someone. What I did basically was start with 1 strand of top coil wired in series with 1 strand of the bottom coil wired like jpg on left in post 328? Took readings then added another strand from top and bottom until all strands were in a big serial config generating over 300 vac PP. Wave shape looked the same for all. I will reserve my comments. Just raw data.

Each coil pair is 1.6 ohms x 4 pairs = total of 6.4 ohms when all are in series.


Pneuphysics

After skimming over Your report:


1: the AWG24 seems to be a kind of "short" over the series windings, "eating away" energy harvested from the fields?

2. There in 4 x #18 nearby lies the sweet-spot? Any AWG #16 handy?

excellent example of a benchmark

[StevanC]

A benchmark for output (just thoughts)

1. A capacitor reportedy converts "whatever" to normal electriricty

2a. A voltage triggered capacitor dumps always at same amount of charge (Q=const) so we can deduce by time (cadence) if the rate increases or decreases for a fixed load it is powering?

2b. A time-period triggered capacitor always dumps at same time regardles of chrage amount (dT=const), so we can deduce from the voltage level if there is a increase of input or not. It can be dischraged to a fixed arbitrary load.

3. A device charging such a capacitor, beit a PSU, a SSG, WM or Kromrey, will see it as a relatively low impedance load (capacitor load), depending of the voltage the capacitor reaches compared to the powering voltage source.
I suggest ranges 12V -> 25V (powering -> dumping) or about so, and capacitances of 25000 uF up to 80000 uF for output powers of 1...12W range?

4. This kind of test should be simple to replicate, yet provide enough accuracy to be considered scientific enough?

my2c

[baroutologos]

@StevenC

You could not be more enlightening.
By the way for the time it seems that Pneuphysics is probably the only one with the capacity to conduct those.

Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: Good work Pneuphysics and thanks for reporting results

[pneuphysics]

@Pneumaphysics,

Am i reading correct? 33000 rpm? Whoa! COOL. I want that!

yes, you are right. If you blindly follow any OU machine making instructions, chances are you fail. Patents, videos, explainations are concepts given for us to experiment and find out how to put things together. No working models specs. At least not described as they really are (physically) or they would be hundreds of them around already. (common sense)

@ Noneed

I have not in anyway reached in any definite conclusion, but the overall idea is what you say. DC resistance kills "acceleration" performance and forces this type of generator to behave as a normal draggy one.
Causes still unknown. Speculations too many.
By the way it is suggested that there is a sweet spot that these type of genys will perform at OU in considerable "COP"s. In the pursue of this spot i have invested too much (As Bedini calls it bell shape, the top of the Bell for a given layout - not experienced yet)

According my experience those are key factors to obtain accelaration... Coil Impedance should be considerable not minute and frequency.
Bear in mind that large impedance in real life conductors comes with high resistance. (which effectively kills the effect)
You can compensate low impedance (hence low resistance) by increasing rpm. (10000 or 20000 is not bad idead! dreadful maybe) A rough rule of thumb of mine so far is that considerable voltage should be developed as ,say, 250-500 volts ac.
Those i know so far (experienced).

By the way, the Muller (Kromrey) report output you mention, i think its fundamentally flawed.


Regards,
Baroutologos

ps: still waiting for the flux question reply

Baroutologos,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, my dc motor tries to keep the wheel spinning at 1800 rpm. The 33 is rps multiply times 60 = 1980 rpm. At 33,000 one mag cuts loose and it might knock a satellite out of orbit

Take care,
Pneuphysics

[pneuphysics]

After skimming over Your report:


1: the AWG24 seems to be a kind of "short" over the series windings, "eating away" energy harvested from the fields?

2. There in 4 x #18 nearby lies the sweet-spot? Any AWG #16 handy?

excellent example of a benchmark

StevanC,

Thanks my friend - I have a little 16ga. I built 3 of those huge coils using a full spool 11 pounds of 18ga. It is a good idea i think to go heavier wire. I have quite a gap between my magnets and the core so for now I am going to replace the Brass shaft with a 1/2" SS non-magnetic and re-bore my magnet holder bars. One is a little off so one of the magnets is farther from the pole pieces by just under 1/4". I am getting small gold looking flakes (brass I'm sure) landing all over the area where this GField was running all day yesterday. Shaft is still tight but I would like to try tighter tolerances and faster speed (3600rpm). I am not seeing any measurable cooling yet either. It does not get hot but not cold as well

I'll keep you posted,
Pneuphysics