Quote from: poynt99 on August 02, 2019, 03:23:40 PM
This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others).

poynt99, Void

May i ask you guys why is there any problem of calling inductive spikes as counter emf when the equation which calculates both is the same?

cemf=-L*ΔΙ/Δt

After all, an inductive spike is a result of opposition to current change isn't it like that?

Thanks Red,
You say "nobody" but how can you know that? I know some of the top engineers in the world who do this work. You think the few people here represent anything? What there are 10 skeptics here playing child's games who all know just basic electrical theory, and therefore you can conclude something about people? Funny!  You really don't have a clue.

The basic video showed no rotation, and all charging to the battery was free. The CFMs were the same. The input went down. A very simple starting point. No, that wasn't a rotating system, but someone, millions of people, could have some extra output than what a very popular motor gave them. You may think it is just more efficient, and that is fine. It is still more than what is usual. It is a tool to show people an easy start. Not the idea conversion for the fan kit, but very easy to start with with people. Like I wrote, if you have extra energy output where there should not be any, then that is free. 10% more is nice. 30% more is better. 50% is fairly noticeable. 90% is great. And rotating continually, well that is where we don't even need to measure it (ooh did I dare say such a thing! 

Look, I do understand what you are saying. You probably followed the wrong person or instructions in the past and that is why you are so sore and nasty about things here. I have seen many a person that is completely ignorant of battery capacity and voltage drops, etc. They got excited, maybe because they had sulfated batteries and saw some voltages go up fast. Eventually their batteries went flat and they really didn't know how to evaluate any of that. I understand this more than any of you here. I have been doing this full time for 15 years, and worked with batteries for 15 years prior to all of this. I deal with battery capacity considerations every day in the real world with real batteries locally, and with engineers all over the world. We deal with bringing batteries back to capacity. But in such controlled experiments we start with new batteries fresh, or cycle them around several times, or whatever is necessary. You need to know exactly the capacity of batteries that you are dealing with otherwise what control do you really have? Early on in all this (2005) I rotated a modified ceiling fan (I just put the blades on a motor) after I set it up to have the same pitch and rpm as an identical one. I compared the watts to run the modified one with my motor and I ran that all spring/summer rotating the car batteries every 12 hours. The AC fan took 40W continuous. My fan took less, and it also had an incandescent bulb creating a few watts of light in addition. This was one of my early experiments, and I actually showed that in detail on video and later at the 2010 convention. The batteries didn't go flat Red. So there is your logging as well. Every 12 hours I rotated the batteries. One charged and the other discharged, back and forth. This was before YouTube so the video is still on the old website somewhere. There was no advanced circuitry. It did have the cap pulser on it. The batteries were not new. Now this was a typical experience that many people all over the world had. Yeah sure, it wasn't for everyone to do that, and people made mistakes. But all this is old news. People wanted more than that eventually. But you guys are newbies and were not around in those days. So you need to start at the beginning. That's why I have done what I have here, to deal with the foundations, step by step.

As I said, the boat was the same thing with a different motor. I did that longer. 3 years. I did many other prolonged tests, but these I did to show people a few examples. Now you guys are all heaping abuse over your demands about exact parts and all that, but so many examples were given over the years already. And it really doesn't matter if I share anything anyway, as you will just deny it or say beforehand that it doesn't work. There are hundreds of statements to that effect in these two forums. I have shared enough so that you can verify this for yourselves, as no doubt at least several of you have (but I doubt would ever admit).

Anyway, I have shown several way to progressively get more or less free energy. A little, self-running, and as much as you want by adding more processes. If you can't do the first stage then it may just not be your thing. You should probably find another hobby.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2019, 05:16:31 PM
No, Dick has posted OU _CLAIMS_. Obviously nothing can be proven on the internet, remember? As we have learned, though, nobody who actually knows how to measure Joules in versus Joules out has confirmed these CLAIMS, though many have tried. The only people who think they have verified his claims are his customers, and these are people who apparently cannot even wind their own coils.

Certainly you can keep rotating the batteries if you wish, until all of them are totally flat. You still won't get more Joules out than were in there in the first place. If you care to claim otherwise, go ahead and demonstrate it for yourself. Don't point to another hours-long video from the person who has already discredited himself here.


Meanwhile we are still waiting for Dick to demonstrate that he can run his frequency generator from the output of one or several of his receiver coils. But I don't think anyone is holding their breath waiting.

Chet!







Chet!






Why





are




you




leaving



so




many




spaces?




Are



you



drawing



attention



to



yourself? 

Quote from: ramset on August 02, 2019, 02:06:52 PM

Raymondo
....


....


....


....


....




....


....


....


....


....


....


....


....


I am not certain this is just one man's opinion

Well,
I didn't post this video here. This is an old subject as I have mentioned. You can do this will just about any brushless DC fan. That is the point. If you watch the video you would understand that it is not about running it for a particular time as there was a power supply on the input. All battery charging would just continue on in the same way. It's pretty simple stuff. You don't need to overthink it.

Quote from: ramset on August 02, 2019, 02:41:07 PM
A king
Since you watched the video
Can you put together a list of components necessary for a replication ?
As well as the claims it runs for one hour  One year or whatever the claim is


Please do not just say generic pieces of equipment with generic components
Please I beg you
part numbers everything
If required a schematic [yes please
whatever it is  ..wire gauge.. terminal connector specs...type and size of batteries [smaller the better for other replicators to follow. 
can we do this  In you're Aking investigation thread ? ask for Build info so there will be no issues Please
or a new topic ??

Well D,
It's good that you at least shared that.
It's doubtful that such experiments showed you no gains. I have seen thousands of similar setups that are motor or solid state, and there has been none that have shown zero gains unless they were doing something fundamentally wrong (which happened many times). Once corrected they always show gains. I suppose, if we take your words from the other day, then the word "gains" is merely arbitrary to be whatever you wish it to be. That's exactly why I wrote something specifically addressing that.

Which brings me to the most fundamental point: That Maxwell's 5 points were removed that make such gains permissible. And they came to Maxwell directly from Faraday. The one motor I have is essentially a Faraday motor inverted, but with battery charging in addition. Anyway, all the arguments here have been based upon the truncated Maxwell symmetrical equations which are just arbitrary and also outdated.

Again, it is interesting that the one faked fan video that was mentioned here a few times with 4 million videos shows they guy deliberately faking the charging side to claim to show a tiny cap not being able to charge up to 1V. I think we all know that is an obvious fake.

It is probably better if you do this rather with an actual motor where you are using all of the input energy to run a mechanical load normally as I did with the fan. Then do extra work in another load like charging battery which will be free energy. This is the idea of having dual purpose or multiply loads of different kinds of energy outputs. We always joke around, if you are going to energize a coil you may as well push a magnet for free. In my deluxe model, in addition to the battery charging, and motor torque, we also power emp receiver coils. May as well, as it is free.

Of course judging form everything you have said and assumed already, I have no confidence that you would do that or present things honestly. But I say this for those who sincerely want to do this sort of thing for themselves. That is all we can do anyway. We call no man master as they view D on OUR.

Now once you can do the basics then you can multiply the same process out again and again many times at the intermediate level. The advanced level is to multiply it out indefinitely as the black box.

Quote from: poynt99 on August 02, 2019, 03:23:40 PM
Back in early 2006 I worked extensively with Eric Vogels on this stuff. Eric did some nice pulse motor builds and I did the coil driver designs. After many variations and testing, we never observed any gains, or extended battery charge.


This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others). The attached design is basic but worked well. I was also looking ahead for a better process, as seen in the version 7 drawing, but work on this ceased after it was determined there were no gains.


...I'm not sure why, but I can't post pics here...