Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[tinman]

 author=TinselKoala link=topic=17491.msg512968#msg512968 date=1510452990]


But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work. 
[/quote]

Ah yes

That is your self tuning thingy--isnt it?

you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained.

Yes--to date,none of the Bedini camp's claims have been verified

I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

I would have to agree,after watching most of his video's.

Brad

[tinman]

Dose any one have any objections to me using the below as the generator?,as it would be far more efficient than any hand wound bedini number.

At 2000RPM,it develops 620VPP from each phase.
In this case,we would just pull off one phase.
Probably will split the phase we are using in half,and parallel connect each half,so as to reduce the voltage to 1/2,as i dont think we need 600+ volts.
These motors make great high frequency, very low cogging generators.

Also pictured is the 400 amp duel pole,double throw relay i will be using to switch from motor to cap discharge.


Brad

[Void]

The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.

Right, that is what I was saying. The only way the caps could be discharged lower than
the battery voltage is if something like a boost converter circuit was used to discharge them.
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point. This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.
Where is the high current coming from to charge the large capacitors fast if high current is what you are trying to avoid?
('High' and 'low' are relative terms however...)


Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing.
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'. If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot
of wasted time and effort. Focusing on OU device claims that have at least been shown to be able to be self maintaining
in some way starts to be become an essential requirement after a while. Even that doesn't rule out potential hoaxes or fraud however.

The reality seems to be there are few OU device claims which look potentially promising where full essential build details are known. Either
essential build details are lacking, or the claims are otherwise lacking or suspect in various ways. This is why I personally have been focusing in the
last few years on testing potential concepts rather than trying to replicate specific device claims. It is not necessarily any more
productive, but at least I am in full control of the test setup details.

[Void]

To try to clarify the point I was trying to make in my comment above,
what I was getting at is that if there is a claimed OU device which seems to possibly hold
some potential for being a real OU device, then if all the important build details are not known
(which is typically the case) then if you have an idea of what the key concepts are
supposed to be that are supposed to make the device OU, then another approach is to
try to think up some simple test setups which can put those specific concepts to the tests.

For example, if I remember correctly I think Grummage did some tests in the past with a
big flywheel where he was trying to test if a large flywheel may pull in extra energy from the
'ambient' somehow. So people could think how to do a basic test setup which would show
clearly if this is the case or not.

The other concept of having generator output coils presumably with large winding turn counts
to produce higher voltage rather than higher current (if I understood correctly) could also potentially
be put to the test in a simple and basic test configuration.

By separating out and putting concepts to the test in simple and easy to understand basic test setups
where ever possible, you may have a better chance of seeing if there really is anything interesting
going on there or not. Trying to replicate someone else's device in which you typically are lacking
important details may often not be too practical. That's my own approach these days anyway.

[tinman]

 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512972#msg512972 date=1510459069]

At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point.This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

Well,that is doable.
At 12 volt's,we would be allowed a current of 4.6 amp's.
The 12 volt series wound motor i am going to use surprisingly only draws 2.8 amps free wheeling =33.6 watts.
This leaves us with 20 watts to overcome any other friction added to the system,which in this case is 2 more bearing's,and the generators drag.

We must also remember that the motor is on only 50% of the time,and so would only consume 1/2 of that 33.6 watt's-->if the speed can be maintained at the 50% duty cycle.

I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.

No necessarily.

Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.

We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'.

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.

Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing.
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

Well,the Wright brothers never had the full detailed plans to build a plane either.They learned by building and trying it out,then made the changes needed.
In fact,every invention was trial and error--not from detailed plan's.
At least here we have a starting point,and claims to go with it.

There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.

Well,with this machine,there would be no such measurement error,as it is an electromechanical looped device.

If the battery drains down over a period of time--then it's shit.
If the battery voltage increases over time--then it's good.

If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot

I have a few tricks up my sleeve that i want to try on this one anyway