Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

Started by sterlinga, April 30, 2008, 10:56:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

SeaMonkey

To follow the discussion which has become quite interesting.

Jettis has voiced an observation which is technically sound.

But whether the inclusion of "make and break" devices or
pulsing devices into the loop makes it an "open loop" is
subject to verification.  Does, in fact, any anomalous or
excess energy manifest with that type of circuit?

With pulsing it is possible to recover some of what would
otherwise be "wasted energy" in the form of inductive
spikes from the motor load and divert them to a desired
storage device.  This will result in an increased efficiency
of the system which in the long term will extend "run times,"
but in itself would not be true "excess energy."  In time, the
system will discharge to such an extent that external energy
will be required to re-energize the batteries.

Never-the-less, it is an instructive exercise in maximizing circuit
efficiency.

profitis

"In
time, the
system will discharge to such an extent that external
energy
will be required to re-energize the batteries."

You bet.the key word for today is deliquent deliquestent

profitis


Dbowling

Guys,
If I take a motor and connect it to a motor that is exactly the same and use it as a generator, the generator will put out voltage because the shaft is being turned, but not as much as it took to run the motor. Can we agree on that? 


In a motor that is being used as a motor, there is ALSO "generated" energy because the shaft is turning. Can we agree on that? Will it put out just as much as when it is used as a generator? A STOCK motor will not, as they take great pains to lose that voltage in whatever windings aren't being used at the moment. Perhaps a pulse motor connected differently is capable of utilizing this generated voltage.


In a pulse motor there is a coil collapse that puts out a spike. Can we agree on that?


In the 3 Battery System, does the input actually pass through the motor without ENTIRELY being "consumed" by the motor? I believe this to be true. In fact, I believe MOST of it goes through the motor.


I believe that the voltage that is input into the MATT MODIFIED PULSE motor passes through it and is joined by the generated voltage plus the collapse of the coil. All of which hits battery 3. Or maybe it is JUST the input voltage and the coil collapse. I don't know for sure.


I believe Luc's tests are going to prove what I have been saying all along, which I proved to myself 10 years ago but to which no one was willing to listen, including folks on THIS forum. And that is that you can get EXTENDED runs from this system.


Matt and I disagreed with Luc, and still do about his test setup (Batteries too small, no pulse motor) as well as his measurements. Not that the NUMBERS on his meters are incorrect. Only that they do not measure what he has STATED they measure, and that his understanding of what is going on is incorrect. Matt said his meters "lie." He said that because they are not telling him what he BELIEVES they are telling him, but it is NOT that the reading on the meter is incorrect. It is HOW he is measuring things. I have taken the liberty of copying the statement Luc made and pasting it here to point out our issue with what he said.


Luc stated: (the bold is my addition)


"If battery 1 & 2 are connected in series and are 12 volts each = 24 volts and the current is measured at 1 amp = 24 watts entering the motor and if battery 3 is at 12 volts and the current entering it is measured at 1 amp = 12 watts entering battery 3. So if we have 24 watts coming out from input batteries and 12 watts going in the charge battery it means half of the input power is being used by the motor and potentially half recovered by the charge battery."


My response:
We do not agree that half the input power is being used by the motor. It is our contention that even though 24 volts come out of batteries 1 and 2, there are 12 volts in OPPOSITION that "neutralizes" (for lack of a better work) 12 of those volts and all that enters the motor is the 12 volt difference. Which is why we say the motor is running on the "potential difference." That is our issue with the measurements Luc is making, not the numbers on the meters.



Luc again:


"12 watts to mechanical power and at best 80% if it is available at the motor shaft which means we have about 9.6 watts in mechanical power at the motor shaft which we can recover back to electrical if we attach a generator to it and can recover at best 80% if it = 7.7 watts and add it to the charge battery which gives a potential total of 19.7 watts recovered from the 24 watts put into the system."


My response:
I also disagree with all of his calculations about what is possible with this system. He is presenting numbers for an inaccurate build of a machine he does not understand and making assumptions about what can be done by connecting it to a generator, stating that a combination of a motor run on this system connected to a generator is only capable of recovering 19.7 watts of 25 watts expended.


I have lots of things I have done that move forward and far beyond these simple experiments. So does Matt Jones. I would bet anyone any amount of money they want to bet that you will find that a proper build of this system run between the positives will use FAR less than what is stated, and that a generator can be built that can exceed his estimate of what can be generated. I know because I have built such systems. I will not be sharing how I did it. I have put up with enough crap without introducing NEW concepts which no one is going to want to believe either.


But BUILD this system correctly and you will see what we have seen and can begin down the path we have been on for 10 years now.


Dave

ramset

Dave
your support in all of this is Priceless , Luc has always agreed to test the setup as advertised [working on getting him all the bits and pieces].

He has his own methods too , and it seems that there will be much to see here as this moves forward.

nothing but gratitude here !!

respectfully
Chet K

PS
and just for clarity
Dave has even offered to assemble the motor to send to Luc for testing.



Whats for yah ne're go bye yah
Thanks Grandma