Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[AlienGrey]

What mistakes would those be then ? 

Again Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device
in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy
he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism
so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would be some what spectacular ?
If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses
instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct
impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests
using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device

I will get my religious bud'y to pray for you.

[NickZ]

What mistakes would those be then ? 

Again Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device
in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy
he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism
so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would me some what spectacular ?
If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses
instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct
impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests
using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device 


   AG:   Sorry, but I'm not looking into Newman's noisy spinning moving devices. Nor any others like it. Nor am I trying to reinvent the wheel.
    Rick:  I feel sorry for what you are going through. But, what we really need here is more proof that adding more and more coils, (hundreds), does not affect the input. And more importantly, does not affect the total brightness in a negative way.   If there really is more output than input, then this needs to be recycled, to self run the device. Until this is shown and proven, the negative speculation will continue. No amount of words and long explanations from you will change that.
   So, please SHOW it self running itself.   Not everyone believes that every OU device that are shown HERE are faked.
   Hopefully, Nelson's devices are not faked, and do self run. Although he won't admit it. Good call, for him. Better safe than sorry.

[AlienGrey]

Nick the Newman device i have was never finished, what I did do was to add JB bridge circuit to it on vero before i go any further
It's no where near OU but if I pulse it at a fixed PW with a ne555 i get one hell of a tulk force but i have no ols com or brushes i can use to really test it in as true Newman device.

[NickZ]

   AG:  Good luck... your ideas are valid, but, perhaps your device is not.   True magnet motors don't need an external input, other that what the magnets provide, so there are no loses, compared to what you are trying to do. But, they are still noisy spinning motors, and I am not interested in that type of technologies.
Only in self running solid state devices. Like what I'm working on.

[rickfriedrich]

Well it's not my channel/thread, however I would expect more positive response about some of the foundational points I have addressed. At least something. The silence is revealing. Some of you guys are not wanting to reveal your true positions on the foundations and that should concern everyone reading your many posts.
So you say I have baggage and should move on but then ask me these questions about Newman. I actually have started another thread on this forum about JB and Newman concerning the video I posted of his lab notes I scanned for him in 2006 along with his 1984 audio interview.

https://overunity.com/18241/bedini-window-motor-came-from-newman-how-story-changed/msg535233/#msg535233

Hey, well I'll start off by saying these are very important questions. Of course there is a lot to address in all this but I'll try and be brief. First point is I think both of these guys were wrong on their theories and I am not certain myself about the fundamental nature of the physical universe and I have everything to learn. So it is hard to judge what is the proper wording to use on some subjects. That is why I try and carefully clarify things.
The coil and rotor geometry is not essentially different in either the Newman or Bedini. But as I found both of them were wrong in insisting that the coil had to wrap all the way around the motor and thus go around the shaft, when all you needed to do is have each end of the coil be in front of each opposite magnet pole (obviously it would still need to go around the entire rotor if there were only two poles). Thus the reason Bedini called it a "magnetic" "Window".

Bedini copied Newman because of Ron Cole. Cole was the one trying to improve upon Newman with semiconductor switching. With Bedini they were able to make the bipolar switching which recycled the so-called Back EMF on opposite phases. This has to be done very carefully or you will produce heat. I filmed Bedini demonstrating that many years ago with it running off an audio cap for 20 minutes. This was a very significant demonstration showing a motor with real torque running off of almost nothing and almost sustaining itself. Very practical. There is nothing else in the general public like this. So if you want a strong motor with trickle input then that is it. I produced that for some time but decided to make the battery rotating system instead.

Yes the more powerful the magnet the more torque you would get. So in this sense we are benefitting from the free energy of the magnet as there really is no drag on this motor.

As for the contact breaker switch I actually just got my first prototype Benitez interrupter setup last week, and that will be a new kit after I develop the details on that. To answer your questions however, you can read the problems Benitez mentions with contact switching of interrupters. There are various solutions, but they can get involved. There are definite advantages beyond the disadvantages of contact switching and spark gaps as they can give very fast rates of change and allow for actually open loops. But they just are not practical for my commercial interests where many customers want something that runs for years without any maintenance. I moved away from the forever-tweeking systems years ago, even though they had some advantages. For me I realized that there are always compromises we have to make in making practical free energy solutions. Cost, availability of parts, ease of assembly, stability of operation, and biological health are my key considerations which means I disregard some 85 free energy systems including solar, wind, and all the other conventional methods.
The truth is that mosfets work very well for the price. The switching speeds allow for rate of change to be acceptable to produce the effects which are needed. This effect then allows for Tesla's process along the one wire to produce unlimited output as I have mentioned and demonstrated on the basic level to everyone (and on the advanced unlimited level concealed in a box).  The losses in mosfets is minimal so why would that matter. I have found people worrying about minor losses in motors while neglecting to focus on what is important. As I said, it is not about doing only what is ideal, but what is practical under the various considerations I have mentioned. I have a lot more options when I have a micro controller. We put into our motors what we call a liberty pulse to change the impulsing slightly ever tenth of a second to avoid the cancer causing effects of repetitive frequencies. We have battery rotation programing that turns the motor off for before the rotation and then turns it back on. We have thermal control, RPM control, user power level controls and many other options with digital control of the mosfets. Good luck trying to do all that with mechanical contacts. If we needed, we could recover all the losses in the fets as well. There are a 1000 things we could do to improve things here and there. But they really don't matter when you consider what the goal is and what really matters.

No one is suggesting SCRs to do such things. If you know what a GTO (gate turn-off thyristor) is you will understand it is essentially a device where you can have the advantages of an SCR and be able to turn it off, which you really can't do with and SCR. But GTOs are also old, and now we use IGCTs (integrated gate-commutated thyristor) in the big systems where thousands of amperes and thousands of volts are switched. This we use on systems above 50kw. These devices are all made up of mosfets and transistors anyway. They are the only real option for that level of switching and do give you some decent frequency as well.

Is it Ricks channel? indeed well well news travels!
Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would me some what spectacular ? If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device 

PS thanks for the advice.
AG