Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Basic Free Energy Device

Started by Dbowling, July 03, 2015, 04:08:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dbowling

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2015, 03:18:28 PM
Well, let's see. First of all how many Joules of energy are contained in 2 12 volt, 45 A-H batteries fully charged? The nominal 12 volts should actually produce an unloaded terminal voltage of something over 13 volts, but let's disregard that for the moment.

12 v x 45 A-H = 540 Watt-hours per battery.
540 Watt-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 1,944,000 Watt-seconds or Joules per battery, so the two together will have 3,888,000 Joules of stored energy.

Now let's see how much energy it takes to run an inverter powering a 100 watt light bulb for 5 hours. 100 Watts is of course 100 Joules per second.

100 Joules/second x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hour x 5 hours = 1,800,000 Joules... less than half of the energy stored in the 2 batteries in the first place.

My original 3BGS setup was three 7.5 amp hour batteries running a small electric motor. So lets apply your math to that setup. And just to reduce the arguments, we'll assume there was 14 volts in each of the three batteries (even though one was "dead"). 14v x 7.5AH = 105 Watt hours per battery. 150 Watt-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 540,000 Watt-seconds or Joules per battery, so three batteries would have 1,620,000 Joules of stored energy.


If I ran a 100 watt light bulb 24 hours a day for ten days.... 100 Watts is of course 100 Joules per second. 100 Joules/second x 60 seconds x 60 minutes times 24 hours per day x 10 days = 86,400,000 Joules consumed as compared to 1,620,000 Joules AVAILABLE. That alone would be COP 53. The problem of course is that I did NOT run a 100 watt light bulb. I ran six of them, 24 hours a day for ten days. And during the daylight hours I ran my shop vac, electric drills, and anything else electrical that I could come up with, showing all my friends and family what this thing could do. At one point the voltage on the primaries went up to over 19 volts and it scared the crap out of me. The actual circuit I did not share at the time.  I slept on a cot next to the thing the entire time and my oldest son was there much of the time helping me. Why go to such extremes?? Because on the tenth day I flew to California and paid a patent attorney $10,000 NON REFUNDABLE to initiate a patent search and begin the patent process. I took the setup with me to demonstrate it to him and it all fit in a small suitcase. I wanted to be DAMN sure I really had something before I forked over that kind of money. When I returned home and hooked the system up again, it did not work. I immediately called the attorney and he was KIND enough to refund $7,000.00 of my money which he did not have to do. I have spent the last 8 years of my life attempting to repeat those results. I have gotten runs of a week. I have gotten runs of a couple days. And quite often I have gotten runs of several hours where the primaries do not drop or actually gain voltage, but I have not been able to replicate the original run. You have no reason to believe my story, and I could really care less. I know what I saw. Do you REALLY think your "numbers" and whining about how I collect my data are EVER going to convince me that I didn't see what I know I saw?


I would have to agree that over the years as I have shared data, I may not have used the "proper" collection methods, but I know what I am looking for and if I ever find it, I will know it when I see it, so data has never been of real concern for me. I'm looking for the great while whale, so measuring minnows along the way hasn't really been of interest to me.


I am waiting for Lowes to get in some batteries. I have already purchased 5 but need 6. Then I will put this new circuit to the test.


Dave

Dbowling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCfmkQ0_zBk
That's all you get. That is a "Basic" Free energy device. It will put out more than it takes to run. Use a pulse motor. Saves input. Run it between the positives and recover 80% of the input. The output can be increased, but not giving how to do THAT away. Even without the output increasing and even without running this on a pulse motor or between the positives it is still COP>1. Not by much, but it is. The 35 volts @ .7 amps from each coil is more than the extra amp draw it takes to run the motor with the other coils connected. And I think I was really being fair when I said it put out .7 amps. If you watched the video it was at .69 for a split second, and went up as high as one amp output. If you DUMP all the power the gen outputs into a storage device rather than running load with it like I was doing in the video, you are home. Without that light there, it will run on just over 5 amps at 13 volts. You get THAT much output from two coils if you are NOT running loads with them and just collecting the power. It can be made to speed up under load so there is NO additional amp draw when you load up the additional coils, but not giving THAT away either. Lots of folks on the forums have shown how to do it. Believe them or don't. I do, and I've seen it. I've DONE it with this generator. I even posted a video of it a long time back. One of my very first videos of my very first version of this generator. With what I have shared so far on this thread, you can put together a COP>1 device. That was all I promised we would show you. I hope you will build it and show what you've built. You MIGHT get some more help. But I promise you this. Anybody who comes on here just asking questions without having built something aint a gonna get nuthin. Have fun. Ok, let the naysaying begin. LOL
Dave

MarkE

Quote from: Dbowling on August 06, 2015, 10:20:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCfmkQ0_zBk
That's all you get. That is a "Basic" Free energy device. It will put out more than it takes to run. Use a pulse motor. Saves input. Run it between the positives and recover 80% of the input. The output can be increased, but not giving how to do THAT away. Even without the output increasing and even without running this on a pulse motor or between the positives it is still COP>1. Not by much, but it is. The 35 volts @ .7 amps from each coil is more than the extra amp draw it takes to run the motor with the other coils connected. And I think I was really being fair when I said it put out .7 amps. If you watched the video it was at .69 for a split second, and went up as high as one amp output. If you DUMP all the power the gen outputs into a storage device rather than running load with it like I was doing in the video, you are home. Without that light there, it will run on just over 5 amps at 13 volts. You get THAT much output from two coils if you are NOT running loads with them and just collecting the power. It can be made to speed up under load so there is NO additional amp draw when you load up the additional coils, but not giving THAT away either. Lots of folks on the forums have shown how to do it. Believe them or don't. I do, and I've seen it. I've DONE it with this generator. I even posted a video of it a long time back. One of my very first videos of my very first version of this generator. With what I have shared so far on this thread, you can put together a COP>1 device. That was all I promised we would show you. I hope you will build it and show what you've built. You MIGHT get some more help. But I promise you this. Anybody who comes on here just asking questions without having built something aint a gonna get nuthin. Have fun. Ok, let the naysaying begin. LOL
Dave
In the configuration that you demonstrated, the device is about 24% efficient:  13V * 8A in, IE 104W and 35V * 0.7A out, IE 24.5W.  I believe you when you say that you can load more coils and the extra load doesn't reflect to the input.  What's happening is that you are improving the efficiency.  Things won't get interesting until your continuous load power approaches your continuous input power.  Unless the universe starts operating very differently than we have come to know:  as the load power gets to be significantly more than half the input power, incremental increases in load power will show up as larger and larger increases in input power.  Once you get to the maximum efficiency point of the system, load power increases will reflect larger increases in input power.

BTW, a flexible coupling like this will get rid of that chatter:  http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_14085_14085?cm_mmc=Google-pla&utm_source=Google_PLA&utm_medium=Hydraulics%20%3E%20Hydraulic%20Couplings&utm_campaign=Northern%20Tool%20and%20Equipment&utm_content=3011&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=3011&gclid=CIC8r9WklscCFUNhfgodt58I6g

I have also found these DMMs to be pretty well.  They are less than $10. each shipped and sold by many vendors:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/151434838855?lpid=82&chn=ps.  TK has found that they are more sensitive to RF noise than the red DMMs that Harbor Freight sells for about $5. each and sometimes gives away for free with a minimum purchase, but otherwise work pretty well.  You can also find cheap on eBay dedicated dual display voltmeter / amp meters with shunts for less than $6. http://www.ebay.com/itm/DC-100V-10A-Voltmeter-Ammeter-Blue-Red-LED-Amp-Dual-Digital-Volt-Meter-Gauge-EA-/261979928515?hash=item3cff3877c3  A couple of these and a 5V wall wart could make your instrument wiring and viewing a lot easier without putting a big hole in your wallet.




citfta

Quote from: MarkE on August 07, 2015, 02:13:39 AM


I have also found these DMMs to be pretty well.  They are less than $10. each shipped and sold by many vendors:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/151434838855?lpid=82&chn=ps.  TK has found that they are more sensitive to RF noise than the red DMMs that Harbor Freight sells for about $5. each and sometimes gives away for free with a minimum purchase, but otherwise work pretty well.  You can also find cheap on eBay dedicated dual display voltmeter / amp meters with shunts for less than $6. http://www.ebay.com/itm/DC-100V-10A-Voltmeter-Ammeter-Blue-Red-LED-Amp-Dual-Digital-Volt-Meter-Gauge-EA-/261979928515?hash=item3cff3877c3  A couple of these and a 5V wall wart could make your instrument wiring and viewing a lot easier without putting a big hole in your wallet.


If you had actually built something instead of telling everyone else they are doing it wrong you would know digital meters don't work worth a nickel on this system.  The readings just bounce around all over the place and don't give any kind of usable readings.  We have used both and the analogue meters are much better at giving an accurate picture.  By the very nature of a dampened needle we get a good average of the pulses no matter what the shape or duration of the pulses.  We could use a digital storage scope with math functions to get a better picture but that wouldn't mean much to most people.  For our purposes the analogue meter is the best choice.  I have everything from a Fluke to the give away meters from Harbor Freight and the simple analogue panel meter is the best for this type of measurement.

Carroll

MarkE

Quote from: citfta on August 07, 2015, 06:50:22 AM
If you had actually built something instead of telling everyone else they are doing it wrong you would know digital meters don't work worth a nickel on this system.  The readings just bounce around all over the place and don't give any kind of usable readings.  We have used both and the analogue meters are much better at giving an accurate picture.  By the very nature of a dampened needle we get a good average of the pulses no matter what the shape or duration of the pulses.  We could use a digital storage scope with math functions to get a better picture but that wouldn't mean much to most people.  For our purposes the analogue meter is the best choice.  I have everything from a Fluke to the give away meters from Harbor Freight and the simple analogue panel meter is the best for this type of measurement.

Carroll
Digital meters only bounce around when the signal  energy has a lot of content between a few Hz and 20Hz.  Above 50Hz even cheapy DMMs average very well all the way to the MHz.  You will only see issues with digital meters if the crest factor is very large.   If you do have content in the few Hz to 20Hz range, that is easily taken out with a passive low pass filter.  For work with typical DMMs: 150K ohms and a 1uF polyester capacitor make a very clean, low-leakage 1Hz cut-off filter.  Those parts together cost less than $1. in single quantities:  Digikey EF2105-ND are $0.68 for one, and less than $0.50 each if you buy ten.

If you are driving pulses and have reactive circuits, then you have a different measurement problem.  You will not obtain an accurate measure of real power by separately measuring the average voltage and current with any kind of meters.  In that case you will need to obtain or construct a power analyzer.  A digital scope with multiplication capability can generate the instantaneous power.  If the scope has advanced math or CSV export then energy can be integrated on the scope in the former case or in a spreadsheet in the latter case.