Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Magluvin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE

Seriously, the issue of how "exact" to get during a replication is a gnarly one. The persons skilled in the art should be able to tell what is truly important and what is not, or would be interested in finding out through experiment as you suggest. Soft iron bolts? Right there one becomes suspicious because a soft iron bolt is about as useful as spaghetti suspenders or a jello frisbee. But OK, we've all encountered less-than-Grade 3 crap that breaks or strips when you put any torque on it. And how could thread pitch possibly matter, one asks oneself. But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough. We've all seen this happen many times. Even though those claimants and complainants cannot do it themselves, they still think they can tell other people how to do it.

"But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough."

Ok, well lets just stick to the subject of should it fail to perform.

What if someone does it straight up and it does not fail?

Do you think that the builders should veer from trying to be as 'close as possible'? Is that a good strategy?

Mags

[TinselKoala]

Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.

[Magluvin]

Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.

I didnt ignore it. I saw it before. Im not going to entertain a hypothetical based all on negatives. If I had a company and and you worked for me in this field and you talked like this all the time Id pull a Trump and 'Your Fired'! I would want people that are not indulging in the negative before things begin. I would want people that are excited and have a positive outlook about this work. Thats not you.  But, continue on. That was my hypothetical return.

Sorry Brad. Didnt mean to muddy it up here.

Mags

[wattsup]

Wattsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !! 
(Corrected misattribution, sorry about that     )

@TinsieKoala

You can take those surface values to mean what you want. A motor may be 80% efficient at turning a fan but that same motor may be 40% efficient in turning a loaded OU device working against real drag. That's why I am saying that by properly using leverage in these builds it provides another input source for the electric forces. Besides you can have a 90% efficient motor or generator but still be 500% away from making anything OU with it.

@Grumage and @all

Nice wheel. So your wheel magnets have a lifting power of how many pounds? What are the dimensions of the magnets? The small center hole means you will mount it at the end of a shaft of what diameter? So this is a fixed six magnet wheel a fixed (x) magnet strength and a fixed (y) distance from axis.

So again I go back to my last post. Of the millions of possible combinations of magnet size, strength, wheel diameter, number of magnets, etc, can we maybe understand why you chose this fixed combination.

OK, then the next step is pick up coils or other means of coupling. The variables are tremendous and at any point in this choosing of your next fixed values, each future decision could either help or hinder the overall outcome. I am not trying to be a pessimist here. Just trying to outline in such works where we usually go wrong because the fact is taking assumptions as reality pushes each of us to build things in the way we do, each step we take closes off future variables until we are squeezed into a small range of possibilities and outcomes.

Where does an OUer really start the R&D process? Does it start at the drive motor? If the total device includes a drive motor then maybe that is the first place to stop and investigate. So you take any drive motor. You make a magnet wheel but now, instead of fixing a distance from axis you make a way of being able to change the distance from axis against a fixed iron core coil. The question is "With this drive motor is there an ideal magnet size, strength and distance from axis that will enable the particular drive motor to both cut through drag and maintain speed? If that first question is not answered by stand alone R&D then this just started on the wrong footing.

What I am trying to say without sounding pessimistic or negative to all efforts is this. With many people having the ability to do concerted R&D into OU, is it not better to divide the myriad of variables into smaller parts, investigate each part on its own before deciding how to put it all together in the best manner possible.

In a perfect world of multi effort R&D is it not better for one person to do one part of the investigation as completely as possible while another does another part and so on so all can learn from the smaller tests how the bigger picture can come together.

So should the magnet wheel be produced first or only after one knows the loaded rpm of the drive motor and the desired frequency of the output that will be fed back to the drive motor as a loop? Or do you start with the pick up coil variables finding out what rpm and frequency will produce the desired output and amperage, to then know which drive motor and how to build the magnet wheel? What comes first? There has to be a logical method of R&D or any of these factors just "guessed" will change the totality of the outcome and become more of a lottery draw then a well thought out process.

I am convinced that with multiple talents on this forum, if all could be coordinated into one major effort, the growth of knowledge towards cause/effect would be tremendous, instead of this solo, slap together whatever and try it out however method that never works and leaves you with more questions then answers. I mean, are most of you not tired of these circular dead end results?

I can expand on what is required if guys want to embark on a real R&D mission which should always be first to learn and then discover the small nuances before you can master their combining forces and from the looks of it, many here already have the base prerequisites and wherewithal. Just remains to be seen if people can really work together and commit to one cause.

wattsup

[Void]

Now we have all the specs, there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.

Hi Brad. Bedini used to recommend using a certain type of welding rod for the coil cores:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-monopole-generators/
"For the coil, just use an old solder roll or a bobbin you get wire on, cut and fill the center hole with .030 welding rod . This works really well."

Some people have mentioned R45 or R60 welding rods, but in 2010 Bedini mentioned the following:
http://www.energeticforum.com/122754-post623.html
"Also the welding rods have changed from the time I first started using them, the iron retains a magnetic bias in the new material, not good."

Bedini also mentions in this same comment that he never uses neo magnets as they can saturate the core if they are too strong.
I am not sure if that also applies to this type of energizer setup as well however:
"I will state this again I never use Neo magnets with these motors because they do saturate the cores I do not want that at all. If you saturate the core then you must use a lot of current in the system I do not want that either."
This might only apply to a different Bedini setup, such as Bedini's monopole trifilar wound generator.
Neo magnets might be fine in this type of setup.

I have seen some people in the past mentioning using 'iron garden wire' to make soft iron cores, 
but I am not sure if it is suitable. For example, I think they may mean this type of wire:
https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Heavy-Green-Coated-Training/dp/B00VKMIGMQ/

Otherwise soft iron rod may be suitable if you can find some.
However, Lindemann stated that Jim Watson used 'steel bolts' for his coil cores in both
of his machines, so, if that is accurate, then it may not be that critical.


All the best...