An energy harvesting project

[skywatcher]

Yes I read it.  i will just assume you don't under stand the English language so  i'm not going to argue with stupidity,

You said it comes from nothing,nothing is nothing so it doesn't com from nothing like you say.
So it can't come from nothing as you say, in order for it to materialise it has to come from some thing or some where  in order to harvest it.

I understand the English language very well, although it's not my native language.

In the first post (and in the PDF) a Bedini machine is described, and measurements to prove that it's 'overunity'.

I said: measurements are always problematic, especially if high frequency pulses and batteries are involved.
The only real proof for 'overunity' is to loop the output back to the input, and look if it runs without any external power.
Or in this case: switch input and output battery and let it run long enough.

Now, what is wrong with my argumentation, in your opinion ?

[Tarsier_79]

The simplest way to prove OU is to close the loop. It is easy enough to modify the circuit to draw and feed from a dual battery system, or using more diodes feed back into itself. I feel the dual battery system is a more efficient system because you are only wasting energy across one germanium diode per pulse.

The Bedini is very efficient, but I don't think it iis OU. Without closing the loop, a COP of 1.01 or even 1.1 could potentially be a measurement error. Even if it is not, that will be an argument against your case.

In any case, all the best.

ADD: sorry, didn't read the above post. I agree, but take out the switching circuit and change to a dual battery circuit.

[JulesP]

My original link is being 'neutralised' by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it's under 15MB.

I should have my 'suggestions' doc ready today (uk time).

A quick comment about 'looping'. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc 'Load Testing' where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.

For those who haven't read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate 'level of confidence'.

I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.

Anyway here are the two main docs I'm sharing at this time. Another will come later today.

J

[JulesP]

Ok, so here as promised I attach a document with my suggestions as to how to improve on, or obtain, a CoP>1 with a pulsed flyback type of generator. It is based on my practical experience from the last 3 years in particular and I hope it will give some inspiration to those who might be stuck with how to move forward.

As using links in posts on here seems to be a bit problematic, there is a link at the end of the attached doc that will take you to a set of folders on my Mega account. There are all the files I have uploaded so far and a lot more. This is all I am willing to share at this time but it should serve the aforementioned purpose.

I expect my next contribution will be some data from increasing the peak spike voltage using other active components and some highlights from the power test data in the spring and of course, any paper I get published as and when that happens.

As I have a lot to get on with, I won't be contributing regularly to the forum. A bit like a flyback pulse, I have injected a lot of energy in a short space of time and now need to move back while it does whatever it does 

I expect I will look in every so often and address any major points but otherwise, keep on with your own unique journeys of discovery and hold to the belief that there is a much bigger world out there than we, as a society, have yet been able, or willing, to reveal.

[skywatcher]

My original link is being 'neutralised' by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it's under 15MB.

I should have my 'suggestions' doc ready today (uk time).

A quick comment about 'looping'. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc 'Load Testing' where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.

For those who haven't read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate 'level of confidence'.

I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.

Anyway here are the two main docs I'm sharing at this time. Another will come later today.

J

I like your systematic approach. Also you have a very 'clean' build. 

I'm looking forward to further results. If they look promising, i also will try it. In the past, i saw nothing which could convince me that a Bedini machine really can have a COP > 1. Only measuring battery voltage is not an indicator of energy content of the battery. They have to be swapped several times to see some significant results. I'm happy to see that you are going to do this.

For me, the final goal would be to get rid of batteries and use capacitors. And after this, to get rid of moving parts. I think everything can also work 'solid state'.