Reactive power - Reactive Generator research from GotoLuc - discussion thread

[shinz62]

For me personally this would not be a problem at all because I believe in setting the high COP
process to the minmum constant setting that I need for it to run at continously, to minimize any
environmental effects, then put normal power to a battery bank and play it out normally as
needed. It removes the demand equation from OU system design.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Not so fast... the battery bank will not provide a consistent load; as it charges up it will reduce its current draw.

[Farmhand]

It appears to me to be maybe an Ainsley type setup. 

I don't know what to say about this except that if it is true then the MIB angle is negated because he still lives, also he keeps talking of the grid but if he can actually return energy to the grid then he does not need the grid, he can use his own AC generator and produce his own AC power and either return energy to it and burn up his generator or tune it to zero consumption, or export power to the grid from his non grid powered device. The fact he doesn't touch on these issues speaks volumes, disconnect the thing from the grid, power it with a conventional fuel powered generator or batteries, produce the OU then loop it.

The thing they always overlook is the cost of the power station facility and maintenance the staff to run it and the fuel to produce the AC they are using in the first place. Claimed free energy or OU devices with inputs from the grid make me sick. It's crazy, why do they need or want the grid if they can produce their own free energy at a C.O.P. of 2000. Is the only loop they know of a "fruit loop" maybe. 

They should be able to power the setup with batteries then switch over from the battery supply to a capacitor and a resistor with a value to stop the capacitor from exploding due to the 30 Watts being fed back to the supply.

I call major bunk. If it is true and they don't release a schematic then they are just as bad as the power companies. However I think there is a mistake.

He said Tesla too many times in a cloud of vagueness.

Oh i get it, only the people who go to the conference will get a hint at the secret and some dubious trails to follow, I doubt any hard evidence or schematic will be shown to anybody. Ever. Time will tell. Considering the past performances I'm not counting on any hard evidence.

Would be easy to engineer a demonstration to show what they did. Ask Tinsel.

..

[shinz62]

Sorry shinz62 I removed your post since it's too close to advertizing

Luc

Oops... sorry about that.

--- I did find this review... about his book.
http://changingpower.net/paul-babcock-uses-magnetic-flyback-for-our-benefit/

It drops some hints about using very short pulses, like a very short duty cycle.

It sounds like that is the fundamental idea. That there is more energy to be had from the collapse of the field.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Odd they didn't make it into a trilogy...

[e2matrix]

Milehigh you are right you sound crazy.   You've gone off the deep end on this one.  It must be difficult keeping up with crushing all the new things that seem to be coming out faster and faster every day.   Firstly if that is a 100 watt resistor rather than a 50 watt resistor like they said in the video and it's getting hot then they must be getting even more power out so that sort of defeats your purpose of trying to call this fake.   It actually looks just like a resistor I've got that is 225 watts.   Whether it's 50, 100 or 225 if it's getting hot on 5 watts input they are onto something good IMO.  I also disagree that it should be mounted vertically.  IMO heat dissipation would be better in the horizontal position.   Heat comes more off the outside of that type resistor than it does the inside.  If it was vertical the heat from one end would be adding to the heat of the middle and the top end would be getting extra hot.  I would have liked to hear your honest evaluation on this but you are sounding like a raving lunatic in your last post.