Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[tinman]

So,after a search through my large crate full of capacitors,i found these 4

I think they'll do the trick for a start.

So,now have all the bit's needed,including the relay switching circuit from the SMD experiments.

Time to build i think 


Brad

[Void]

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.

...

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

Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt.

[tinman]

 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512979#msg512979 date=1510476102]

Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt.

There is only one way to find out,and that is-go into the project with an open mind,and see the results for your self.

[tinman]

 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg512980#msg512980 date=1510476966]

yes...  I have an objection....  the device depicted in the diagram is labeled as an "energizer" not a generator.....  the information that the community was provided by Peter Lindeman "after the fact" should not be taken into consideration, why?  He never explained what it was, instead while intersted parties were distracted, he substituted the energizer for a conventional generator, alternator, dynamo, what have you....

OK,so the schematic below is wrong--!OR! missing bits?.

If you insist on using this charging method, know that you will be at the mercy of Lenz, each time your cap is discharged below 620v, or whatever the maximum voltage is of your generator.  Some time ago I had an offline discussion with Matt Watts,  I shared with him how I interpret this situation and how to get around this limitation...

Are you willing to help out with this project in a straight forward manner ?,as in sharing how you circumvented the lenz drag,or perhaps completing the schematic as John had it.

Cogging is compensated for by the flywheel...so we don't have to care about that....The "energizer" in the example also uses an offset there are an even number of magnets and an odd number of coils....  one could setup an offset between an even number of coils and magnets, however, this is a more involved process...   Point is...cogging isn't an issue..

Yes,no problem with cogging with a good sized flywheel.
However,if there were an even number of magnets,and an odd number of coil,would mean that each the coils were not hooked in series or parallel,as each of there phases would be different.

The voltage at the output, through what mechanism it's produced, what level it must reach, these are issues of paramount importance.  The voltage must be HIGH, allowing for one to charge a relatively small capacity, between 10 and 200uf in a single impulse.  The mistake being made is to be found in how we assume the system accumulates energy over several cycles....it doesn't!

Well,with parts of the schematic/circuit missing from what we have,it's going to have to be by trial and error.

Look.....The fact that the community is even entertaining the idea of replicating this device shows that those chomping at the bit, ready to go weren't paying attention.  Bedini informed the community that the SG is the Watson machine!

Actually,Bedini said the watson machine was a copy of his machine.

The machine cannot run itself, not how its setup....  you might have a chance though, if you can convert the generator into a motor during the time when the prime mover is disengaged.....

Well i suppose that i could build a 3 phase drive circuit,as it was a motor to start with.

Im guessing that it should be a pulsed motor though,and we are then to look at the inductive kickback as our high voltage source.


Brad

[Void]

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.

Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions.

I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning.
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... If some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them.