Here we go again.
Since I am over here I can have a look at this.
At least they are attempting to close loop with capacitors.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/10/self-looped-motor-generator-philippines/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/10/self-looped-motor-generator-philippines/)
The track record of these devices has not been good
Looks like his build is on a dolly. The fact that he does not move it can mean there's an electrical wire coming out from the cement floor under his dolly.
If he could redo the video and move the dolly around then may have a better demo but he would need to connect a voltmeter to those batteries so we can see if they are draining.
Luc
At best its 90% efficiency and a simple loop with a open circuit buffer so that the battery can charge (recycle energy) whilst carrying a load. At worst it has a wire under the dolly like Luc mentioned.
Simple maths usually provides the answer. You have a generator and motor that are miles from efficient so any sort of mild OU effects are going to swallowed up by that gaping abyss.
Lastly....the Phillipines is the Nigeria of Asia. Home to scammers bred of poverty. If this is OU self loop then you have to be pretty inept not to make something of it. You dont go online and post bogus videos and talk about funding for 10 years like Ismael Aviso. He has nothing but high efficiency.
hopefully I will get an invite to see it , will report back
Kind Regards
Be interesting to see how long it runs on a capacitor, look forward to your update mark.
Quote from: Lakes on July 11, 2013, 04:06:10 AM
Be interesting to see how long it runs on a capacitor, look forward to your update mark.
The answer is given here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-qIjLZQbRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-qIjLZQbRU) :
jasondaz2009 (http://www.youtube.com/user/jasondaz2009) July 11, 2013
why... Because once you removed the battery while running, the system current flow of which to stabilize is will no longer support the unstable voltage current coming from (collecting waste energy) loop mode sequence, same with capacitor.
jasondaz2009 (http://www.youtube.com/user/jasondaz2009) July 11, 2013
while running and removed those battery, the answer is YES it will work,
but in limited time only maybe a couple of minutes and then it will shut-off especially when there's load connected.
Draw your own conclusion, greetings, Conrad
There's not much I can add to this one, but I'll chime in anyway.
Tinman's simple test is also a good quick go-nogo kind of test. Any device like this is either running on power from the batteries, or it is not. If it has lead-acid batteries, or most any other kind of batteries, it will behave like this:
While running, the battery voltage measured directly at the battery will be at some value. Immediately after the device is _shut off_ and the battery disconnected, the voltage measured on the disconnected battery will either rise a bit or it will fall a bit. If the battery was running the device, the voltage will RISE a bit after the batt is disconnected, and if the device was charging the battery the voltage will FALL a bit after disconnection.
I think an electrical free energy investigator might like to prepare, at some cost, a couple of identical "black boxes". One contains a couple of nice, deepcycle marine 12 volt LA batteries. The other contains as much supercapacitance as you can stuff in there and some series resistance to approximate the impedance of a battery stack. Only the investigator knows which is which. These tools can then be used in various ways.
It is important to realize that a real fraudster isn't going to let you do any tests that will reveal the fraud. But if he won't let you hook up a large-enough capacitor bank with appropriate impedance matching to his system, or if he gives you some handwaving excuse about why it won't run in OU mode with caps only.... then you know something is fishy.
If someone is invited to test such a device and then has restrictions imposed, such as no oscilloscopes, no peering into sealed boxes, etc. then you know there is something fishy.
If you are invited to test at a particular time, and when you get there the device is broken, awaiting a part, or can't be tested _completely_ when you arrive... then you know there is something fishy.
If there are people at the test who appear to have no really good reason for being there.... especially if they are wearing dark glasses and don't say much... then you know there is something fishy.
A good power analyzer is basic equipment for this kind of work and next in importance is a properly capable DSO, with proper current and differential voltage probes. This kit is not cheap but if used properly will save "somebody" a lot of time and money in the longer run.
The easiest person to fool is yourself. After that, the next easiest person to fool is someone who really hopes you have what you claim, and can be distracted by irrelevancies, like hand waving claims about not being able to run a battery-powered device on a proper capacitor stack. Secret waveforms, so no scope use..... smile, pack up and say goodbye right there because you are getting snowed.
A bit more thinking on this topic:
If I were contemplating testing this device, I would need to know some information going in.
First, exactly what is the claimant claiming and what is the basis (data, experiment, demonstration) for the claim(s). This part should be well-specified and agreed to by both parties before beginning any testing. No handwaving allowed!
Then, what tests have been done already, who did them and may I please see the _raw data_ from those tests.
Then, what exactly may I _not_ do when testing. What does the claimant permit, what is not permitted.
Then, what test equipment and facility is available on-site.
Once I knew some of these things, including as much basic background about the device or method itself as permitted, I'd be in a position to think about designing a real testing procedure, under the constraints imposed by the claimant and the physical situation.
-------------------
"Let's not worry about the explanations, yet. Let's just make sure we agree on the observations, first." --S.Weir
Of course you should have as much battery data as possible, before during and after running, and at several intervals too. Tinman's test, as I said, is a rough and ready test and the results should be interpreted with care and in conjunction with other testing.
Batteries have all kinds of problems and "tricks" associated with them. That's why every electrical free energy device I can think of needs a battery, installed and working, in order to produce its free energy effects.
Every one except two, that is. The Tar Baby running on an external cap bank of 360,000 uF charged to 40 volts, produces a "mean negative power product" for a few seconds until the caps are discharged, and the Altoid pocket FE demonstrator, running on its 2 F cap bank charged to 5 volts, makes the mean negative power product for a minute or so before it runs down.
Of course these are deliberately designed in "measurement errors" but if you didn't know that, you would have to say that they are making "negative" output power, yet still powering a load, while running on capacitors alone.
It's fun to listen to the excuses given for why a "measured negative power product" can't charge the capacitors, but is supposed to be able to charge a battery, with exactly the same waveforms.
By the way, on June 12, I saw this:
QuoteWe are organizing and coordinating for our next move forward, we are days away from our Proof of Concept build process!
Are we sure he didn't mean "months" away.... .and what happened to his proofofconcept build process that claimed to have several self running prototypes, over a year ago?
Never mind, I'm just needling you. Travis is all wet, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join his cult. Next year at this time, we can have a reunion and see what progress he hasn't made.
no no.quite the contrary.you must force them to use lead-acid cells for the test mark.then do the spot chemical analysis i suggested of electrolyte afterward.the analysis of sulfuric acid concentrations wont lie to us.it wil reveal all.case closed.
Thanks TK and everyone else.
You raise a good point. What testing will they allow? Last year I went to South Africa to test Sterling's Number 1 motor generator. I took the physicist and cases of test equipment. When we got their the inventor freaked when he saw the equipment and we were not allowed to test anything. However we saw the set up, and every battery in the place was stuffed or having to be charged on mains power before the next test. We also realized who they had taken the idea from, so we talked to the original inventor and got the board of him lol (great story)
Now Sterling's other best friend over here Aviso will not let me test anything unless i pay $10,000.
It will be interesting to see if this latest inventor allows me to come and examine the device and what restrictions are on testing. I have emailed, so has Sterling and I left messages on you tube. Time will tell.
PS thanks for your ideas on testing, I always like to get a diverse set of ideas.
Kind Regards
Mark
PS PS thanks for everyone who visits the site, it is really cheering the team up seeing the numbers grow.
PS the inventor has made contact with me and will be making arrangements to meet
@markdansie:
Good deal, at least he didn't pull the "I'm being threatened so I'm in hiding" story or the "I disassembled my working model to build a better one". . . .
Please keep us posted.
truesearch
With big, and visible batteries...
Then... come to recipe:
1 - Motor
1 - Generator ( OPTIONAL, but improves the look )
1 - Disassembled No-Break.
Quote from: webby1 on July 11, 2013, 11:06:02 AM
Franken Motor will run for 5 minutes on a 15,000 MFD cap charged to 24V before discharging and stopping, the voltage goes up and down while running until it makes a pop noise or something else like the brushes get messed up,, but the load it is moving is only the coil faces acting like a fan. When it does make the change the voltage still is going up and down but it goes down further and does not make it up as far ,, a slow descending oscillation,, so would the upside of those be the negative part you are talking about??
Power is the multiplication of Voltage and Current. With a complicated waveform the only way to compute it properly is to derive an "instantaneous power curve" that takes samples of voltage and current at tiny tiny intervals, multiplies those and makes a plot of power vs. time. An "average" or "mean" power can then be computed from this instantaneous power curve, taken over a suitable time interval. In "normal" devices this power product or mean power will be positive, indicating power coming from the source and being dissipated in the load. In "free energy" devices like Tar Baby, Altoid, and Ainslie's circuit, the mean power product is negative. This has been interpreted as indicating either more power dissipated in the load than is being supplied by the source, or that the load is powering the source in some way, ie recharging it or preventing its discharge.
Or, of course, as a measurement error.
Just a quick update,
I will be testing within about 2 weeks, both the inventor and I are busy (I have another OS trip next week)
He is easy to deal with, very qualified and his motives are genuine.
I o not need to state public my position on these devices, but I o always learn something new
He has given me a full description of how it works and I will post that when I get clearance to. I respect peoples privacy.
I see if I can get that posted in teh next day or so
Kind Regards
.
The setup (two ac motors) looks similar to EV Motor and others I've seen. The EV motor guys use capacitors too.
Good luck and have fun learning about this motor mate!
I will be posting daily update here
http://breakthroughenergynews.com/Forum/index.php (http://breakthroughenergynews.com/Forum/index.php)
I will also copy and paste when I get time here.
Here is some of today's update
On my most recent email exchange I received this answer to where did the energy come from?[/font]The energy is came from the dynamo alternator the ac 220v main output and send it to the stablizer circuit box and the battery is connected also there. alternating and swtiching happens on that part.. and the purpose of the battery and capacitor is to support the current whenever the power from dynamo generator is going in low voltage upon in loop mode, the system is sensing that voltage. just like an ups switching system invert and then switching "when the power is low it activates some relays from another source" But how about the battery reached its low voltages? that is the secrets of this device, my battery is not reaching the low level voltage whenever using it and has a huge load on it, because i just design circuit that can detect voltage of the battery and recharge it into float mode, same principle with Maxwell ultra capacitor, since I am using agm deep cycle battery 100 ah i set this to 11.5v in low detection, and then self recharge it again in continuous cycle as in automatic. no low battery encountered. so this machine will continue to run and experience nonstop. but maybe it depends on the electric motors when it will be broken. that's another things to get solve. use high quality motors with type H quality.
Quoteself looped motor generator in the Philippines
Yeah, sure, certainly... I guess it's the same awesomeness as the hair circuit from india...
Quote from: markdansie on July 13, 2013, 03:39:37 AMI will be posting daily update here [...link...]
You must be kidding... shortly before the member "Ghost" started another forum and now you start one as well... as if a multiplication of free energy forums will magically provide a multiplication of electric currents...
actually the forum was attached to my web site. Its actually being set up for Global BEM, I psot here normally. We are just giving it a technical shakedown before handing it over.
I am not claiming this works but will go through the motions of testing it and reporting back
The history as you know is 100% fail. However a lot of people are interested in devices like this. I like to nip them in the bud early before they end up like a Noble gas engine or Yilditx.
The inventor has honorable intentions at least.
Mark
PS this has some legs might appeal to you better
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/13/water-for-fuel-seawater/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/13/water-for-fuel-seawater/)
Quote from: markdansie on July 13, 2013, 08:30:15 AM
I am not claiming this works but will go through the motions of testing it and reporting back
The history as you know is 100% fail. However a lot of people are interested in devices like this. I like to nip them in the bud early before they end up like a Noble gas engine or Yilditx.
The inventor has honorable intentions at least.
Mark
You mean, except for the NRL data showing anomalous "excess heat" production in gas-loaded metals and in electrolytic cells, right? Anomalous heat accompanied by RF generation but (so far) no nuclear products.
To be reported on at the upcoming ICCF-18 in nine days...
Dr. David Kidwell et al.:
Quote
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research at the Naval Research Laboratory
D.A. Kidwell1, D.D. Dominguez1, A.E. Moser2, J.H. He2, K.S. Grabowski1, G.K. Hubler1 C.A. Carosella1, C. Cetina2 and D.L. Knies1 1Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375 USA 2NOVA Research, Inc., Alexandria, VA
We have explored the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for about eight years focusing on transmutation, electrochemistry, and gas loading with the latter two being the most fruitful. In electrochemistry, palladium foil is loaded with deuterium in a closed electrochemical cell contained in a calorimeter. Occasionally, excess energy is produced that is much larger than can be accounted for by chemistry or the electrical input into the system. Unfortunately, the poor reproducibility (<6%) prevented discovery of the trigger for this excess heat. In gas loading, palladium nanoparticles are pressurized with deuterium. While the resultant heat is very reproducible, it is much lower than from electrochemical experiments and therefore harder to characterize as unconventional chemistry. In both approaches to LENR only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established.
Science is data driven. Once a hypothesis is formed, the most important scientific task is to disprove the hypothesis. Only after failure to find conflicting data is a hypothesis accepted as likely correct, but that acceptance can change on a moments notice when new data arises. Although simple in concept, LENR experiments have subtle pitfalls to trap the more casual researcher, and much of our effort has gone into uncovering these pitfalls. Through a historical perspective, I will discuss the application of the scientific method to selected results and how incorrect conclusions could have been easily made. In contrast, we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention.
What do you think of this, Mark, TK, MH, everyone: Quote "only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established..... we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."
This is Dr Steven Jones and I have spoken to one of the co-authors (Graham Hubler) and he has shared data with me that looks compelling - their earlier data even looks darn solid! Just wait 9 days more.
@JouleSeeker
I was referring to self looped motor/generators.
I believe their is something to LENR and have seen experiments first hand. Over 100 million dollars has been spent on LENR research in the last two decades. However as I have been stating in the last 3 years that although many institutions and companies have been demonstrating events and data supporting LENR, no one has managed to self loop it or engineer it into a worthwhile device.
I hope these engineering issues are sorted soon and we see something useful.
Mean time other alternative energy technologies are booming and gaining momentum in many countries around the world. So I am not sure, apart from heating applications where LENR will have a role given current output levels. No one is buying Rossi machines at the moment because hey are not economically feasible,
PS Steven Jones...show me the data?
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on July 13, 2013, 11:35:08 AM
@JouleSeeker
I was referring to self looped motor/generators.
I believe their is something to LENR and have seen experiments first hand. Over 100 million dollars has been spent on LENR research in the last two decades. However as I have been stating in the last 3 years that although many institutions and companies have been demonstrating events and data supporting LENR, no one has managed to self loop it or engineer it into a worthwhile device.
I hope these engineering issues are sorted soon and we see something useful.
Mean time other alternative energy technologies are booming and gaining momentum in many countries around the world. So I am not sure, apart from heating applications where LENR will have a role given current output levels. No one is buying Rossi machines at the moment because hey are not economically feasible,
PS Steven Jones...show me the data?
Mark
Fair enough, Mark. I quoted from the abstract: the talk will be in 9 days and hopefully I'll be able to show the latest data after that talk.
A few clarifications:
1. JouleSeeker = that's me, Steven Jones
2. The abstract says "
"only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established....." which means the anomalous heat may NOT be NUCLEAR in origin, at all. Not fusion, not LENR.
3. Note the way they word the last sentence: "
"we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."
An "
unknown source of energy", not claiming LENR/nuclear you see, although they refer to LENR research.
4. My opinion -- its a slow progression, from "cold d-d fusion" which the heat was clearly not, to LENR, and now to "unknown source of energy."
@Jouleseeker
Thanks you raise some interesting points. Lets wait and see
Mark
QuoteWhat do you think of this, Mark, TK, MH, everyone: Quote
"only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established..... we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."
Really? You really want to know what I think of that statement? I think it's a remarkable logical fallacy.
They cannot explain their results, having not found "artifacts" that could explain them, therefore they "must" conclude that an unknown source of energy exists.
NO.... they WANT to conclude that, so they do. But in actual fact, they cannot explain their results, therefore they cannot conclude ANYTHING except that they have unexplained (not unexplainable) results. They cannot use results whose causes they cannot understand to support their hypothesis !!
The street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?
Of course this is not right. Perhaps I didn't actually go outside to look, and so I failed to notice that the sky is blue, the sun is hot and the kids have opened the fire hydrant and the street is wet for that reason.
I don't know what the evidence indicates, it's not my speciality nor is it my particular area of interest. I've read enough scientific reports to know that they frequently err, even in describing the actual data generated, so for unusual claims, if it is "big science" that I can't approach personally I have to wait for good replications and the test of time, before I can decide upon the reality of what is claimed. However, I know a bogus conclusion when I see one, and whether the actual case IS or IS NOT that CF/LENR exists, this "must conclude" thing is a fallacy and should be withdrawn, as it presents an entirely false view of what the data even _could_ indicate, much less what it does indicate.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2013, 01:14:35 AM
Really? You really want to know what I think of that statement? I think it's a remarkable logical fallacy.
They cannot explain their results, having not found "artifacts" that could explain them, therefore they "must" conclude that an unknown source of energy exists.
NO.... they WANT to conclude that, so they do. But in actual fact, they cannot explain their results, therefore they cannot conclude ANYTHING except that they have unexplained (not unexplainable) results. They cannot use results whose causes they cannot understand to support their hypothesis !!
The street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?
Of course this is not right. Perhaps I didn't actually go outside to look, and so I failed to notice that the sky is blue, the sun is hot and the kids have opened the fire hydrant and the street is wet for that reason.
I don't know what the evidence indicates, it's not my speciality nor is it my particular area of interest. I've read enough scientific reports to know that they frequently err, even in describing the actual data generated, so for unusual claims, if it is "big science" that I can't approach personally I have to wait for good replications and the test of time, before I can decide upon the reality of what is claimed. However, I know a bogus conclusion when I see one, and whether the actual case IS or IS NOT that CF/LENR exists, this "must conclude" thing is a fallacy and should be withdrawn, as it presents an entirely false view of what the data even _could_ indicate, much less what it does indicate.
A "remarkable logical fallacy", TK? because they see anomalous heat along with RF generation, but NO nuclear products are
observed -- so they straightforwardly say this heat comes from an "unknown source of energy" - and that's "logical fallacy"?
I see this as scientific humility, not logical fallacy. They make the measurements over and over, but have not been able to pin down the source of the anomalous heat. They are practicing careful science, IMO, not "logical fallacy".
QuoteThe street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?
No, you should say "there was an unknown source of water", until you find out where the water came from. This is what these scientists are doing when they say "unknown source of energy" at this stage.
I happen to know that the lead author, who will be speaking at the conference, was VERY skeptical about the "anomalous heat" claims just a few years ago. But because of his own experiments and data and re-checking, he has changed his views -- as have I.
But - as Mark Dansie says -
QuoteLets wait and see
Mark
The way you put it, it is simply a tautology, which is another fallacy of reasoning.
"We believe our measurements are showing a source of energy. We don't know where this energy is coming from, so we must conclude that we have an unknown source of energy."
Open the Champagne!
(I have found, in my journey through this life, that Physicists in particular often have little or no clue about the realities of Experimental Design, the nature of Inference, or the logic of Null Hypothesis testing. Many PhD physicists have never had coursework in inferential statistics (as opposed to descriptive statistics) or experimental design, and wouldn't know how to operationalize a construct if they woke up next to one.)