self looped motor generator in the Philippines

[conradelektro]

Be interesting to see how long it runs on a capacitor, look forward to your update mark.

The answer is given here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-qIjLZQbRU :

jasondaz2009 July 11, 2013 
why... Because once you removed the battery while running, the system current flow of which to stabilize is will no longer support the unstable voltage current coming from (collecting waste energy) loop mode sequence, same with capacitor.


jasondaz2009 July 11, 2013 
while running and removed those battery, the answer is YES it will work, but in limited time only maybe a couple of minutes and then it will shut-off especially when there's load connected.


Draw your own conclusion, greetings, Conrad

[TinselKoala]

There's not much I can add to this one, but I'll chime in anyway.

Tinman's simple test is also a good quick go-nogo kind of test. Any device like this is either running on power from the batteries, or it is not. If it has lead-acid batteries, or most any other kind of batteries, it will behave like this:
While running, the battery voltage measured directly at the battery will be at some value. Immediately after the device is _shut off_ and the battery disconnected, the voltage measured on the disconnected battery will either rise a bit or it will fall a bit. If the battery was running the device, the voltage will RISE a bit after the batt is disconnected, and if the device was charging the battery the voltage will FALL a bit after disconnection.

I think an electrical free energy investigator might like to prepare, at some cost, a couple of identical "black boxes". One contains a couple of nice, deepcycle marine 12 volt LA batteries. The other contains as much supercapacitance as you can stuff in there and some series resistance to approximate the impedance of a battery stack. Only the investigator knows which is which. These tools can then be used in various ways.

It is important to realize that a real fraudster isn't going to let you do any tests that will reveal the fraud. But if he won't let you hook up a large-enough capacitor bank with appropriate impedance matching to his system, or if he gives you some handwaving excuse about why it won't run in OU mode with caps only.... then you know something is fishy.

If someone is invited to test such a device and then has restrictions imposed, such as no oscilloscopes, no peering into sealed boxes, etc. then you know there is something fishy.

If you are invited to test at a particular time, and when you get there the device is broken, awaiting a part, or can't be tested _completely_ when you arrive... then you know there is something fishy.

If there are people at the test who appear to have no really good reason for being there.... especially if they are wearing dark glasses and don't say much... then you know there is something fishy.

A good power analyzer is basic equipment for this kind of work and next in importance is a properly capable DSO, with proper current and differential voltage probes. This kit is not cheap but if used properly will save "somebody" a lot of time and money in the longer run.

The easiest person to fool is yourself. After that, the next easiest person to fool is someone who really hopes you have what you claim, and can be distracted by irrelevancies, like hand waving claims about not being able to run a battery-powered device on a proper capacitor stack. Secret waveforms, so no scope use..... smile, pack up and say goodbye right there because you are getting snowed.

[TinselKoala]

A bit more thinking on this topic:

If I were contemplating testing this device, I would need to know some information going in.

First, exactly what is the claimant claiming and what is the basis (data, experiment, demonstration) for the claim(s). This part should be well-specified and agreed to by both parties before beginning any testing. No handwaving allowed!
Then, what tests have been done already, who did them and may I please see the _raw data_ from those tests.
Then, what exactly may I _not_ do when testing. What does the claimant permit, what is not permitted.
Then, what test equipment and facility is available on-site.

Once I knew some of these things, including as much basic background about the device or method itself as permitted, I'd be in a position to think about designing a real testing procedure, under the constraints imposed by the claimant and the physical situation.

-------------------
"Let's not worry about the explanations, yet. Let's just make sure we agree on the observations, first." --S.Weir

[TinselKoala]

Of course you should have as much battery data as possible, before during and after running, and at several intervals too. Tinman's test, as I said, is a rough and ready test and the results should be interpreted with care and in conjunction with other testing.

Batteries have all kinds of problems and "tricks" associated with them. That's why every electrical free energy device I can think of needs a battery, installed and working, in order to produce its free energy effects.

Every one except two, that is. The Tar Baby running on an external cap bank of 360,000 uF charged to 40 volts, produces a "mean negative power product" for a few seconds until the caps are discharged, and the Altoid pocket FE demonstrator, running on its 2 F cap bank charged to 5 volts, makes the mean negative power product for a minute or so before it runs down.
Of course these are deliberately designed in "measurement errors" but if you didn't know that, you would have to say that they are making "negative" output power, yet still powering a load, while running on capacitors alone.
It's fun to listen to the excuses given for why a "measured negative power product" can't charge the capacitors, but is supposed to be able to charge a battery, with exactly the same waveforms.

By the way, on June 12, I saw this:

We are organizing and coordinating for our next move forward, we are days away from our Proof of Concept build process!

Are we sure he didn't mean "months" away.... .and what happened to his proofofconcept build process that claimed to have several self running prototypes, over a year ago?

Never mind, I'm just needling you. Travis is all wet, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join his cult. Next year at this time, we can have a reunion and see what progress he hasn't made.

[profitis]

no no.quite the contrary.you must force them to use lead-acid cells for the test mark.then do the spot chemical analysis i suggested of electrolyte afterward.the analysis of sulfuric acid concentrations wont lie to us.it wil reveal all.case closed.