It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Free Energy' DIY Anyone?

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


I'm familiar with the work of Viktor Schauberger and the site you linked is a good example of his theory put into practise to create a viable extra low head turbine. Note that the full potential of 1m^3/sec and 1.3m head is 12.75kW and the electrical output is only 8kW or an overall efficiency of only 63% which is really quite good for such a low head situation despite the way it looks at first glance. They don't make any spectacular claims of overunity and are honest in their figures too which is particularly rare


The figure that stands out to me is the 40,000 Euros invested in that single scheme.
In my currency that's about $70000 up front and at typical domestic energy prices here it would take over 5 years just to break even. That might sound bad but it's actually quite good as large scale hydro with massive dams etc takes far longer than that to reach the break-even point even though the overall efficiency of energy conversion is about 50% better in the large high-head schemes.

This scheme would be considerably more cost-effective than wind or solar options too but bear in mind that it's output (8kW) equates to about $1.50 worth of domestic general supply energy per hour.




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Question: If the Sun suddenly exploded, would it take 8minutes for the Earth to spin off at 90degrees?


Hi Prisoner,

Didn't have time to get to more of your post but i thought i could add something i have at hand:

metaresearch.org...

Fascinating reading as supplied by the late ( passed away recently) Tom Van Flandern.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I decided to upload the results from my SSG experiment (just got round to cleaning up some files).

I think the table is self explanatory, but if not, take a look at the posts I made earlier in the thread to see what it all represents.

I was fairly strict for the first 6 runs, using only about 20% of the battery capacity and keeping things as constant as possible.

I then decided to get a bit more 'random' just in case I was 'training' the battery and not getting 'real' results.

The COP remained about the same, no matter the cycle, averaging 1.28.

Bottom line: ..... my interpretation of this is that the experiment showed the battery consistently put out 28% more conventional energy than was put into it, over 16 charge and discharge cycles.

Bedini's explanation is that the SSG taps radiant energy/zero point/vaccuum energy that manifest in the form of 'radiant spikes' at about 300V DC, which are not measurable on conventional ameters or voltmeters (but can be seen on a scope). The radiant spikes interact with the lead plates of the battery, and through a chemical process, energy is stored which can be conventionally measured and used to do work (i.e. light a bulb!)


The last 3 runs are obviously 'out of whack', I was getting sloppy by this time and kept forgetting to unplug the discharge bulb! I only added them out of interest and these results are not included in the COP average





Bedini also claims the radiant spikes de-sulphate old batteries (the one I used was brand new), and can recover old lead acid accumulators, provided the plates are not 'damaged'. In addition, the spikes seem to deposit a crystalline structure on the plates, which improves their capacity and performance.

Recently, my kid left some electricals running in my car. The battery was flattened, and 2 days later I tested it at 5V DC.

In my limited understanding, this would mean the battery was stuffed.

I connected the SSG, left it running for a week until the voltage was back around 11V, and then finished off the charge via the alternator on a long journey (at 40mA it would have taken months to fully charge with the SSG).

The battery is now holding a normal charge and seems to be just fine.

Anecdotal, not scientific, but just throwing it into the mix.

here's a pic
....




[edit on 24/6/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Thanks for the update RodgerT. Looks impressive.

You mentioned about the 'desulfurification' process. Do you know what the crystaline substance is that you said seemed to coat the plates?

What's your next step for the motor?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
No idea sorry. Bedini made a few comments in one of the EFTV videos about looking at it under a microscope, but I don't remember what else, if anything, was said.

I'm really not up to speed on the ins and outs of the technicalities or the terminologies. I'm just a guy that followed an instruction booklet and built the machine.

It does seem to do what he claims, but there could be other explanations, which is why I put it out on ATS for debate.

What I'm supposed to do now is write up the experiment and post it on the group boards. Then I believe I may be eligible for application to the advanced group. However, I don't have the time or energy to take it further at the moment, and have no intention of going at it half-assed.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Interesting results indeed

As for for the desulphating effect of spikes I can confirm that it does work. As lead-acid batteries go flat the plates get coated in lead sulphate and the 'locking up' of sulphate ions in the coating is what causes the specific gravity of the electrolyte to fall. If the sulphate is allowed to form large crystals they can grow to the point where the plates will be physically distorted by the pressure of the crystals within the small clearances and the big crystals will eventually destroy the battery.

I've had an experiment going for years on a few 'irretrievable' old totally flat car batteries (dead flat and sitting on a cold concrete floor for over 5 years each) where I'm hitting them with a pulse peaking at over 100A every 500usecs or so. The pulses are only about 1usec wide so the batteries are not getting cooked and what appears to be happening is the large sulphate crystals are being slowly broken down. Those 'throw-away' batteries are now very much rejuvenated but the process is far too slow to be practical being measured in years, not hours.

So yes, current spikes can desulphate lead-acid batteries.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
With Bedini's stuff, it's not current spikes, in fact there is virtually no effective current. That's the point, as far as I can make out. It's voltage without current.

I know Bedini's company makes chargers (radiant chargers they are called) that are much more powerful than my little SSG.

My machine inputs less than 50mA, so any desulphation should have very little to do with current.

Just musing .... current is what causes heat right? Schauberger talks about nature's power processes being mostly cooling (at least the creative forces) and the antithesis of Man's power processes which cause heat.

Along this line of thought, it makes sense that the 'radiant' energy would be 'currentless' and not have any heating effect.

Perhaps you should try hitting your batteries with high voltage spikes, not high current spikes



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
If we consider the internal resistance of a reasonably healthy lead-acid cell it doesn't take much of an over-voltage to produce the 100A current spike. You really can't separate the voltage/current/impedance relationship (Ohm's law).

What I'm doing in effect is storing energy for 499 microseconds and then releasing it in 1 microsecond via a simple switchmode circuit. The overall average DC input current is extremely minimal and can be actually supplied by the battery itself but, to keep the process running for years, I'm using a regulated power supply to maintain it so the batteries are constantly float charged between spikes.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


I would like to congratulate you on your quest. The thing about radiant energy is that it is counterintuitive from conventional electromagnetics.

Everything seems backwards. Batteries cool instead of heat, induction increases input, rather than decrease input. It's a cold "electricity."

And things that are occurring cannot be measured with conventional instruments.

Keep up the good work.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
If we consider the internal resistance of a reasonably healthy lead-acid cell it doesn't take much of an over-voltage to produce the 100A current spike. You really can't separate the voltage/current/impedance relationship (Ohm's law).


I highly recommend you d/l and watch the 'energy from the vacuum' series. You'll most likely find all of them on the torrent sites.

I think this is really the point, but I can be highly mistaken. Bedini does talk about ohm's law being irrelevant in the case of radiant energy (I think).

Don't the results of my little experiment also point in that direction? If we use ohm's law we get a battery with a COP of more than one, which is obviously impossible. There must be something else going on here that V=IR does not account for.

[edit on 24/6/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Thanks. I'm looking forward to my next step. Fully intend to bring water and Schauberger into it, but no idea how that is going to happen.

Some meditation and maybe a bit of plant medicine may show me what's next



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Great stuff, RogerT and Pilgrum


Please check my thread,

German Scientist Posts Complete Vacuum-Energy Documentation!

Can anyone make use of the information there?



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I've been following that thread. The doc is way over my head bro', I'm waiting for some smarter ATS'ers to produce a dumbed down 'build it' plan



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by houdanny
 

Wikepedia? Wikepedia is your source??????

Under proper test conditions? You sure of that? Hell, six years ago, we had a large forensic lab verify that we were getting 2.1 times unity of wattage using hydrogen plasma, and a trick cathode, they certified the results, and you haven't seen those results, either have you?

Better not, as they are under a strict non-disclosure agreement.

Why would people get killed? And by who?

So someone is going to announce, "Guess what? No more gasoline is required. No more coal is needed. No natural gas! In fact, we can extract all the energy we need, at will, at any point in the universe!"

Not going to be a popular idea with everyone. It throws entire nations resource valuations down the toilet. Trillions of dollars of assets are overnight - worthless.

The real question would be - who wouldn't want to stop this?

A year ago, I held in my hand, a perfect electret. Had been running for years, I shorted it out several times, and would watch the thing spool back up in a couple seconds. On the way to sign the European licensing agreement, the inventor, who had called me just the night before, was found dead, and within days, his lab, all late-generation electrets, his equipment, computers, lab notes, and safe were gone.

Do not presume to tell me about what is there and what is not.

For clarification - - No one said anything here about free energy. Only you!

That one-watt input??? That ain't free, baby!

And since you are so very ignorant of what is available, what is possible, what has already been done, and your source of scientific data seems to be Wikipedia, in all honesty, I wouldn't trust you to market a box of Girl Scout Cookies.





Very well said that man!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I don't see any mistakes in the math in the table above, so that's not an issue. I can't think of any immediate explanations right now, but I have a few questions and comments to consider. I did go through all the posts, but I may have missed some information about your setup, so if I ask a question that's been answered already sorry.

Desulfurification: I don't really know anything about this, but if this is the issue, one of the following might tell you this is the case:
-were all trials done with the same battery?
-do you have other batteries of the same kind that you can get data on?
-could you get data on different kinds of batteries, or is that possible?

Other Questions that may or may not be important:
-what method are you charging the battery with? I'm just wondering if there could be something in the method that could cause measurement error
-are there any really big (like several megaohm) resistances in the circuit anywhere? Voltmeters are not ideal, and have an internal resistance and I have seen circuits where this can seriously mess up measurements if not taken into account. I seriously doubt this is an issue, but I haven't seen your schematics, so it cannot be ruled out

Given that your COP was quite consistent, except for trial 17, which should probably be discounted, whatever is happening likely has a definite scientific explanation, as opposed to experimental errors. The explanation isn't necessarily radiant energy or whatever, but the same thing is happening in every trial; it is reliable, whatever it is. If I had your results and equipment here right now, I'd probably try tweaking things slightly and seeing how that affected things in the hopes that I could learn more about what was actually happening. In particular, I'd try to rule out desulfurication if possible.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I don't see any mistakes in the math in the table above, so that's not an issue. I can't think of any immediate explanations right now, but I have a few questions and comments to consider. I did go through all the posts, but I may have missed some information about your setup, so if I ask a question that's been answered already sorry.


No worries. I'll answer what I can and try to refer you to more informed sources for the rest.

Before getting into it, here's a schematic of the circuit:



The other thing I should explain is that this is NOT my experiment. I simply joined a public yahoo group, downloaded an instruction pack, and built the experiment according to the design as best I could.

Many others have done the same before me, and have posted virtually identical results, so there is no 'fluke' or measurement error that explains the 'phenomenon', unless everyone is making the same mistakes


Here is the group URL: tech.groups.yahoo.com...

I may well have some measuring errors, that skew the results one way or the other, but I doubt that would go anywhere near nullifying or seriously discounting the effect that is observed.


Desulfurification: I don't really know anything about this, but if this is the issue, one of the following might tell you this is the case:
-were all trials done with the same battery?
-do you have other batteries of the same kind that you can get data on?
-could you get data on different kinds of batteries, or is that possible?


Desulphation is a bonus of the radiant spikes, or so Bedini tells us. It does not explain the additional energy seen in the discharge cycle. In my understanding, de-sulphating a battery would only improve it's capacity to hold charge, it would not cause more energy to magically appear at the discharge end of the cycle.

All my posted runs were done on the same battery, but I did buy 2 identical batteries and used them in rotation at first. I killed one of them by using a car charger to over charge it, so ended up restarting the experiment with the single battery. When using them alternately, the results were compatible.

Other people have used many other kinds of battery. The most intriguing version of the experiment is to charge a 12V car battery with a 9V flashlight battery. That one really confounds the electronics guys


It is possible to put also several batteries on the output, just that the circuit needs retuning, I am told.



Other Questions that may or may not be important:
-what method are you charging the battery with? I'm just wondering if there could be something in the method that could cause measurement error

I'm using the circuit as shown above.



-are there any really big (like several megaohm) resistances in the circuit anywhere?


No, my SSG seemed well tuned with about 600 Ohms as the resistance.



Given that your COP was quite consistent, except for trial 17, which should probably be discounted, whatever is happening likely has a definite scientific explanation, as opposed to experimental errors. The explanation isn't necessarily radiant energy or whatever, but the same thing is happening in every trial; it is reliable, whatever it is. If I had your results and equipment here right now, I'd probably try tweaking things slightly and seeing how that affected things in the hopes that I could learn more about what was actually happening. In particular, I'd try to rule out desulfurication if possible.


Well that is exactly the point of the SSG experiment, to get people thinking and trying to understand what the heck is going on.

The key is to 'follow the instructions' to begin with. Too many 'experts' begin tweeking before they get the thing to 'work' and then claim it is bogus.

Seriously, with your skill and knowlege, you should be able to knock this out in a relaxed day off, if you have the parts handy or a radio shack close by.

[edit on 29/6/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
If you live on a sufficiently long south facing sloping hill, at the top of it . . .

with sufficient sunlight most days most of the year . . .

You could build a well insulated concrete or similar trough glazed over with say 4 layers of polycarbonate glazing and painted black on the 2 sides and bottom of the trough.

Install a large filtered area for air intake . . .

Install a ducted fan at the top.

The fan could generate electricity. And, you could have forced air heat as a bonus.

I don't have any specifics as to length and output etc. I just know it would work. It is my own idea modifying part of

Paolo Soleri's plans for Arcosanti in Arizona.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I've also thought that . . .

if one had a sufficiently deep dry well . . . and proper gearing etc. . . .

one could use such a fan generated electrical source and/or wind generated electricity to wind up a concrete weight a la similar to a very large grandfather clock's pendulums . . . and the weight during dark or windless times could then generate electricity.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Another group that may be of interest to people is

Alf Energy



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Looking at that circuit, I couldn't see how it would be producing overunity energy. So... I did some research on the internet, and whipped out one of my textbooks, and here are some comments...


From rpmgt.org...

The efficiency of the circuit and motor is not the same as the COP. The efficiency is less than 100% while the COP is greater than 1. The energy transfered for work by the primary battery has an efficiency of less than 100% as there are losses mentioned.


COP can be greater than 1, but that doesn't mean that free energy is being created/generated. According to that website, which I realize isn't Bedini's, but is based on his work, the efficiency is less than 100%, which means that there is no free/radiant energy being produced.

When you are charging the battery, it is, by your numbers, charging slower than it discharges. Now, you do not have any way of knowing, based on the data given (that I can see, anyway) of when the charging battery is actually fully charged. You don't have any data about how many joules of energy are actually contained in each battery. What I think is happening is that the succession of experiments has simply moved energy from the primary battery into the charging battery without creating/generating/gathering 'radiant energy'.

Let me put forward an analogy. Suppose you have two bathtubs, one 'primary bathtub' with 100 liters of water in it and one depleted bathtub you want to 'charge', that only has 50 liters in it. (analogous to the two batteries, liters analogous to joules) Okay, now suppose that you grab a drinking glass and proceed to scoop water from the 'primary' tub into the 'charging' tub. This takes you awhile, but in 1 hour you scoop 20 liters from the primary to the charging tub. The primary now has 80 liters and the charging has 70 liters. Now, suppose I grab an ice cream pail, and then 'discharge' the charging tub. It'll take a lot less time to do it, and I can scoop more water in less time. Suppose I scoop 30 liters in ten minutes. Now the charging tub has 40 liters and the primary has 110.

Now, imagine this process again, only with one key difference. *You don't know* how much water there was in each tub to begin with, or at any step along the way. Without know how much water is in each tub, you can't tell if I am creating water out of thin air or not.

I think that's what's happening with your batteries. You have measured voltages and currents, and calculated (or used a wattmeter) the power, and measured the time, and calculated the transferred energy. What you have NOT calculated is the TOTAL amount of energy in the batteries.

Now, everything I have said here does not prove or disprove radiant energy. It strongly hints (in my mind, anyway) that there is no 'radiant' energy coming from somewhere, but it doesn't prove it either way, for the very reason that we don't know the total amount of energy in the batteries. What it does say is that there are more things to measure/calculate before we can say for sure whether free energy is being produced or not.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join