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.

 

Turkish Inventor Ready to License Free Energy Motors and Generators for Production

page: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
There are all the legendary inventors who were rumored to have something that worked such as Tesla, Moray, Kron, Sweet, Searl etc.

There are the Disclosure Project witnesses who claim to have worked with these systems in classified projects.

Many, many people claim to have successfully replicated the various Bedini motors.

The Keppe motor is making big waves in Brazil and internationally.

The inventor who is the subject of this thread and his company are said to be highly credible.

Blacklight Power claim to have an overunity system and they have already licensed out the technology to at least six companies.

There's plenty of evidence out there already. Evidence isn't the problem IMHO.


All a bunch of claims. The only "Evidence" I found of something which MIGHT be realistic was a working "Keppe motor", I watched the 4 videos linked here (their 3rd link is a duplicate of the 4th but I changed the 4 to a 3 to get the 3rd video and that worked):

keppemotor.wordpress.com...

OK I know something about motor design and I can tell you this. When you go to Wal-Mart to buy your fan, if you saw one for $24.99 and one for $19.99 that looks the same on the outside, and you can't tell them apart, you'll probably buy the cheaper one. That's why you don't see the more expensive one that uses more copper in it that may be more efficient.

One of the ways to save money on motors is to take copper out of them, which can make them less efficient. The fan maker wants you to buy their fan, they don't care about your electric bill. So yes fan motors can be inefficient and the motors themselves can get warm, wasting heat energy.

And there are ways to design more efficient motors. The Keppe motor is a DC motor, not an AC motor like the cheapie store model fan they use for comparison. So there's a cost problem right there, you need to convert AC to DC, and the components to do that aren't free so that makes it more expensive to make the Keepe fan, which is probably why we don't see more of them.

The Keppe claims about making a DC motor which is more efficient than the cheap AC motor don't strike me as impossible. So that's the only claim on your list where I was able to find at least a HINT that it MIGHT have some merit. However, there are strong reasons to be very suspicious of the Keppe motor claims:

1. They do claim to be getting the increased efficiency out of thin air, and not from improved design and engineering of the motor, higher cost components, etc. So this makes me very dubious about their claims.

2. Here's a screenshot of another item they have, the Keppe motor DNA:


This is literally a modern version of "snake oil". the claims are, if you feel bad, it will make you feel better, if you have pain, it will stop the pain, it makes you younger, etc.etc. All of this based on the fact that it emits electromagnetic fields (like all unshielded motors do), which if you recall, electromagnetic fields are the things people seem to want to get AWAY from, by not living under power transmission lines. I'm not aware of any definitive research about either positive nor negative results of exposure to low levels of electromagnetic fields emitted by motors or power lines. (The power line is further away, and the motor is closer, so even though the field from the motor is weaker at the source, you are much closer to the source with the fan motor, so the exposures we could get at typical exposure distances could actually be comparable).

So does Keppe have a more efficient motor? It's possible, but the efficiency improvement is probably not coming from vacuum energy, but instead from some engineering improvement. And can we really trust people that are literally modern "snake oil" salesmen with their "do-nothing" device that "cures all ills"?

Regarding the video linked to the OP of this thread, I just watched it again. Basically they show three loads: two incandescent light bulbs where the intensity and power usage varies based on the voltage applied to them, and the third load is a motor just spinning with no load attached, so basically the only torque the motor needs to provide is to overcome the friction in its bearings at low speed, and possibly some air friction or turbulence of the rotor at high speeds, so it probably shouldn't use much power just to overcome the bearing friction. Now look at the brightness of the two light bulbs. At no time does the brightness of the two light bulbs plus the small energy of the motor spinning with no load attached look like it exceeds the input. So there is nothing at all impressive about this demonstration.

They don't show what's inside the boxes but there are several designs that would do exactly what is demonstrated in the video, such as switching resistors in or out of the circuit, they will show a lot more power input and will dissipate all their energy as heat, this could easily explain what the video shows.

Now if the video showed an input of 25 watts, and two incandescent light bulbs with the brightness of 100 watts each, that would at least be impressive. But it's not impressive. At no point does the apparent output of the loads appear to exceed the measured input.

So armed with these observations hopefully you can review these materials yourself and determine that none of the claims are true. The only claim I've seen that may be partially true is a more efficient motor design, but even that claim is not fully true because any efficiency improvement is coming from better materials/components/motor engineering, and not from vacuum energy.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
All a bunch of claims.


What more do you want?

How are these people supposed to prove something over the internet without us being able to examine it, touch it, take it apart and put it back together, measure it, run tests......?

There was that MajorDummy guy who offered to throw some real money around and organize some official testing of a device, and we all saw how far that got..........



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by theregonnakillme
 


You and I are on the same page. Unfortunately it will take a truly special person to do it. I would love to see someone blog the internet with home build plans for something like that. Everything is always suppressed so it can meet "standards" and pass "tests". Every time that happens only certain people get to see the real deal and everyone else is led to believe that it was a hoax, conspiracy or money grab. If the average person or his handy neighbor or friend could build one and have it working pretty soon lots of people would have one and it would be impossible to suppress it. Wishful thinking on my part I guess.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
All a bunch of claims.


What more do you want?


You said there's evidence. Claims are not evidence. I can claim to have a device that will transport astronauts up to the ISS, eliminating the need for the space shuttle. Would that be "evidence" too?

The way claims are proven is by manufacturing and selling the devices, like was done with the Atmos clock. I'm sure some people were skeptical that it could run with no batteries, or electricity, or human intervention like winding, and that it just extracts the energy it needs from thin air, but they make it and it does just that. Nobody has shut down the Atmos clock makers for making a device that runs on thin air, they've been doing it for years.

So if anybody else's claim was true that their device could also run on thin air, they would be making it and selling it also. And they aren't.


Originally posted by michial
Wishful thinking on my part I guess.

I agree.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
What I meant was it would take an altruist. Someone who isn't interested in profit. As soon as money becomes involved the arguments start. It can't work. I was taught this in school. They are hoaxers trying to rip the public off. Etc.,etc. I looked at the site. I have Quicktime. Interesting to see they have an office in Pennsylvania. Also what looks like a factory in South Korea. Contact numbers. Email addresses. Instead of posting here how it can't be real, go argue with the inventor. Gotta love those sceptics. They all get old and eventually the real deal comes along and proves them wrong. It's interesting that Velcro was invented in the '40s and didn't get any real support until it was used for the space program.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding the video linked to the OP of this thread, I just watched it again. Basically they show three loads: two incandescent light bulbs where the intensity and power usage varies based on the voltage applied to them, and the third load is a motor just spinning with no load attached, so basically the only torque the motor needs to provide is to overcome the friction in its bearings at low speed, and possibly some air friction or turbulence of the rotor at high speeds, so it probably shouldn't use much power just to overcome the bearing friction. Now look at the brightness of the two light bulbs. At no time does the brightness of the two light bulbs plus the small energy of the motor spinning with no load attached look like it exceeds the input. So there is nothing at all impressive about this demonstration.

They don't show what's inside the boxes but there are several designs that would do exactly what is demonstrated in the video, such as switching resistors in or out of the circuit, they will show a lot more power input and will dissipate all their energy as heat, this could easily explain what the video shows.


That's true, and it's also easy to manipulate the phase shift between the coils of an AC motor. It can also be done by varying the load (bulbs?) attached to a coil (if there is a capacitor connecting them). The phase shift will affect the rotation. It's been a long time since I took a class in this subject, though. I can still imagine that the phase difference will play a role in how much energy the motor just dissipates. Example: both coils are in phase. The motor would not spin at all, but still consume energy. Change the shift and it will start spinning. You get the picture, I hope.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's true, and it's also easy to manipulate the phase shift between the coils of an AC motor. It can also be done by varying the load (bulbs?) attached to a coil (if there is a capacitor connecting them). The phase shift will affect the rotation.


Actually this is a real issue in electrical engineering, it's called power factor correction and exactly as you said the phase is shifted by inserting or removing a capacitor from the circuit to compensate for (offset) the inductive load from the coil windings in a a motor or other inductive load.

I considered that possibility but I didn't mention it because the effects they were demonstrating were relatively large compared to the effects I'd expect to see from the power factor issue. Some large, heavy industries actually do save money on their electric bill through implementation of power factor correction technology, but I haven't yet seen an implementation suitable for home use. This article helps explain why and some of the issues:

Do Power Factor Correction Devices (kVAR) really save money?


Power Factor Correction Devices claim to reduce residential energy bills and to prolong the productive life cycles of motors and appliances by reducing the reactive power (kVAR) that is needed from the electric utility.

the only potential for real power savings would occur if the product were only put in the circuit while a reactive load (such as a motor) were running, and taken out of the circuit when the motor is not running. This is impractical, given that there are several motors in a typical home that can come on at any time (refrigerator, air conditioner, HVAC blower, vacuum cleaner, etc.), but the unit itself is intended for permanent, unattended connection near the house breaker panel.


I actually looked into getting one of these power factor correction devices and e-mailed the manufacturer and they confirmed that they do in fact not cut in and out as needed depending on the amount of motors that are running in the house. So the device could end up INCREASING the electric bill if you're not running a lot of motors a lot of the time. However if someone figures out how to implement a control circuit to switch variable amounts of capacitance in and out as needed, that might really save energy. But as that site also says, limitations in the way residential energy usage is measured may even prevent these true energy savings from being realized in lower utility bills. If it weren't for that, I might have pursued the idea of making improved devices that deliver varying amounts of capacitance on demand with electronic control circuitry. But if it wont really save anyone on their electric bill, that takes away some of the incentive to save energy. It would really only benefit the power companies by lowering their electrical production costs, if the power factor is corrected for them.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You said there's evidence. Claims are not evidence. I can claim to have a device that will transport astronauts up to the ISS, eliminating the need for the space shuttle. Would that be "evidence" too?

The way claims are proven is by manufacturing and selling the devices, like was done with the Atmos clock.


Like this?



But I get the feeling that now in this case it'll just be a different set of excuses, people will go "how dare they charge so much for this device and make so much money from fooling gullible people, those snake oil salesmen, those fraudsters......"

There are hundreds of people who claim to have successfully replicated Bedini's earlier designs like the School-girl motor too, but I guess they don't count as "evidence".....



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


The Bedini motor has been debated at length here on ATS. I don't think anybody was able to build a model that would run longer than the capacity of the battery would allow it (hardly surprising). Yes, it can spin for a while, but equally my flashlight will shine as long as there is charge in its own battery.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The idea isn't to make a motor that runs longer than the battery capacity will allow.

The idea is that Bedini motors charge batteries with Radiant energy.

The claim is that once you charge up some batteries and then use them, you eventually get more amp-hours out of the secondary batteries than you had to put in.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
The claim is that once you charge up some batteries and then use them, you eventually get more amp-hours out of the secondary batteries than you had to put in.


I understand the claim.
By swapping the batteries, you would easily create an infinite source of energy. This never happened.

The very presence of a battery is shall we say specious



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You can swap the batteries. Once a battery in the secondary bank is charged up you can disconnect it and plug in a discharged one. When the primary battery is discharged you can swap it with a fresh one.

The reason he does it this way is because he says a battery is the only thing he has ever found that can store and convert Radiant energy into standard current.

I think the fact that he leaves the system open instead of closing the loop is somehow significant too. He says that when you close the loop and run current back into your source dipole, all you're doing is killing the dipole and wasting energy.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You said there's evidence. Claims are not evidence. I can claim to have a device that will transport astronauts up to the ISS, eliminating the need for the space shuttle. Would that be "evidence" too?

The way claims are proven is by manufacturing and selling the devices, like was done with the Atmos clock.


Like this?



He says at 4:50


"These are experimental kits for your own experimentation, and understanding of what this energy is".

That doesn't sound like a claim that he's selling a working device. Phrasing it that way could help keep him out of jail for fraud.

So no, not like that, I mean nobody is selling a real working device, not some "experimenter's kit for experimentation", I could sell one of those for cold fusion too but that doesn't mean that cold fusion works.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I was speaking to a friend about one of my inventions and he began telling me about his friends dad who made a battery charger that recharges non rechargeable batteries. A big battery company took him to court before he got it to market and put him out of business with all the legal costs.
Theres loads of excellent inventions never get to market, and therell be loads more...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegreatestone
I was speaking to a friend about one of my inventions and he began telling me about his friends dad who made a battery charger that recharges non rechargeable batteries. A big battery company took him to court before he got it to market and put him out of business with all the legal costs.
Theres loads of excellent inventions never get to market, and therell be loads more...



You can buy a charger like that so is what you have been told 100% true then?

www.nigelsecostore.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes your corrct missread,it has 2 components but only one directs it



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by henriquefd
 




...And that is why, to me, those turkish inventors are full of bs, because I asked them many technical questions which they didn't answer. They said their technology could be used in both hybrid and autonomous fiull electric buses, but when I replied asking for more details, no answer.

Those are not professionals. A professional would have answered my questions and taken this opportunity asap.


Oh, but you are very wrong. These guys are professionals. Professional Scam Artists. Here are some pointers: How to spot a 'Free Energy Device Scam'

reply to post by michial
 



You and I are on the same page. Unfortunately it will take a truly special person to do it. I would love to see someone blog the internet with home build plans for something like that. Everything is always suppressed so it can meet "standards" and pass "tests". Every time that happens only certain people get to see the real deal and everyone else is led to believe that it was a hoax, conspiracy or money grab. If the average person or his handy neighbor or friend could build one and have it working pretty soon lots of people would have one and it would be impossible to suppress it. Wishful thinking on my part I guess.


Here is a nifty little service that I just found: LMGTFY

Hmmmm, only 5,240,000 results. All this censorship of the internet is evil. It is a plot between the energy companies, the CIA, and Osama Bin Laden, no doubt.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He says at 4:50


"These are experimental kits for your own experimentation, and understanding of what this energy is".

That doesn't sound like a claim that he's selling a working device. Phrasing it that way could help keep him out of jail for fraud.


You assume that they are committing fraud, but I don't think so. To my knowledge Bedini has never been convicted of fraud, plus he is renowned for some of his other inventions in the audio industry. He is about as credible as they come.

I have heard him talk about this issue of phrasing before, he says that as soon as they start using the words "free energy" or "overunity" they get all kinds of heat coming down on them. But if they soften the language a bit then they are able to get away with a lot more.

So, it's not a "free energy device" or "overunity device"; it's just a "battery charger", it's just an "energizer". They're not selling "free energy units", they're just selling "experimental kits".



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegreatestone
I was speaking to a friend about one of my inventions and he began telling me about his friends dad who made a battery charger that recharges non rechargeable batteries. A big battery company took him to court before he got it to market and put him out of business with all the legal costs.
Theres loads of excellent inventions never get to market, and therell be loads more...


Hmmm well someone got a battery charger for non-rechargeable batteries to market because I bought one. It doesn't work that well but it does have special control circuitry in it that keeps the battery from exploding.

If the model your friends dad didn't have that special circuitry, it could explain why he couldn't get it to market, the batteries can explode.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He says at 4:50


"These are experimental kits for your own experimentation, and understanding of what this energy is".

That doesn't sound like a claim that he's selling a working device. Phrasing it that way could help keep him out of jail for fraud.

You assume that they are committing fraud, but I don't think so. To my knowledge Bedini has never been convicted of fraud, plus he is renowned for some of his other inventions in the audio industry. He is about as credible as they come.

I have heard him talk about this issue of phrasing before, he says that as soon as they start using the words "free energy" or "overunity" they get all kinds of heat coming down on them. But if they soften the language a bit then they are able to get away with a lot more.

So, it's not a "free energy device" or "overunity device"; it's just a "battery charger", it's just an "energizer". They're not selling "free energy units", they're just selling "experimental kits".

You need to read more carefully.

If I thought he was committing fraud I would have said he WILL go to jail for fraud, but I said that experimenter's kit description may keep him OUT of jail.

"Experimenter's kit" is code for "don't expect it to work, I make no guarantees". I think you could sell experimenter kits for cold fusion the same way and as long as you don't claim it actually works, you can get away with it.

Now some hoaxes are intentional fraud, but some inventors have actually fooled themselves into thinking their device actually works. Bedini's has enough components that he may actually not know how to measure its efficiency properly. So I don't know if it's intentional fraud or just incompetence in that he really doesn't know how to make proper efficiency measurements. I've seen both cases.




top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join