Fully Electronic Free Energy Device

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #1, on March 3rd, 2014, 02:10 PM »
I could also do a video just like that, showing how some PCB with electronics miraculously lights up some lightbulbs when I attach a cable to it.
Why are there so (very) many clips like this about claiming it's free energy when you don't get to see the "other end" of the cable?
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #4, on March 4th, 2014, 11:53 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on March 4th, 2014, 07:31 AM
Yes, too complicated.  How about this one?
Much better :thumbsup:

Just the schematics missing then for a benchtest.
My take on this is that it taps in on the native frequency of the national grid (50/60 Hz) and steals a little energy from it.
Hey, nothing wrong with that, there's tons of energy going to waste under the grid lines anyway 24/7 to no use at all.
Remember the fluorescent lights?

Matt Watts

Destroying Free Energy Devices
« Reply #5, on March 4th, 2014, 04:24 PM »Last edited on March 4th, 2014, 06:11 PM
Quote from ~Russ on March 4th, 2014, 09:41 AM
you guys are ate up... ~Russ
Hear that Lynx, there were two trains:  One went North with the folks that already have free energy and the other went South with the folks that don't care any more and missed both of them.   hehe



As you'll see here, inventors have already decide to begin destroying free energy devices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCzZyB_UUMc#ws


We really missed the train Lynx.

Gunther Rattay

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #7, on March 5th, 2014, 12:41 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on March 4th, 2014, 04:24 PM
Hear that Lynx, there were two trains:  One went North with the folks that already have free energy and the other went South with the folks that don't care any more and missed both of them.   hehe



As you'll see here, inventors have already decide to begin destroying free energy devices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCzZyB_UUMc#ws


We really missed the train Lynx.
Quote from Matt Watts on March 4th, 2014, 04:24 PM
Hear that Lynx, there were two trains:  One went North with the folks that already have free energy and the other went South with the folks that don't care any more and missed both of them.   hehe



As you'll see here, inventors have already decide to begin destroying free energy devices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCzZyB_UUMc#ws


We really missed the train Lynx.
there are many ways for inventors to cope with their frustration dealing with characteristics of amateur free energy watchers.

what if this vocal watchers community would jump in and replicate anything instead of striving for ongoing infotainment ... ?

seems to me like a teardown for competence of movers and shakers.


maybe we can now learn and witness something important about future history :-)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8#ws

Matt Watts

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #8, on March 5th, 2014, 02:08 AM »
Quote from bussi04 on March 5th, 2014, 12:41 AM
what if this vocal watchers community would jump in and replicate anything instead of striving for ongoing infotainment ... ?
I've spent the last three days watching videos mostly in Russian, trying to get a clue how to reproduce the Lithuania Experiment.  I have a hunch by the time I figure it out and build a working prototype, there won't be anyone here left to even show it to.  No matter, at least I will have met my personal goal.

Sometimes I think about a forum/site where it is a requirement as a member to have at least one project thread active at all times.  You have to show up and you have to contribute or bye-bye.  Not quite like school or work.  More like a club where you value your membership and do your part to make a difference and not so much because you have to, but because you want to.  A place where you will be surrounded with some really sharp minds of very capable people.  And always you will learn as much as you teach.

Just a crazy thought and if I thought of it, I'm sure it is already being done somewhere.

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #12, on March 6th, 2014, 12:58 AM »
Who are these people?
They just have to be paid for by the fossile fuel industry, or the likes, to put out all kinds of bullsh!t clips like this just to divert attention from what you're experimenting with right now.

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #16, on March 8th, 2014, 04:36 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on March 8th, 2014, 01:32 AM
If you can't have any success with that, I'm not sure what it's going to take.
A test of such a build in the middle of the Sarara desert maybe.....?
If it works as advertised there, that is if it produces absolutely free energy with no strings attached whatsoever in the middle of the desert, then I'll consider looking a little bit more into it.
Until then I'll assume it's taking energy wirelessly from the domestic environment/national grid, which is in a way free energy I guess, albeit at the expense of your neighbour(s).

Gunther Rattay

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #17, on March 9th, 2014, 12:49 AM »
Quote from Lynx on March 8th, 2014, 04:36 AM
A test of such a build in the middle of the Sarara desert maybe.....?
If it works as advertised there, that is if it produces absolutely free energy with no strings attached whatsoever in the middle of the desert, then I'll consider looking a little bit more into it.
Until then I'll assume it's taking energy wirelessly from the domestic environment/national grid, which is in a way free energy I guess, albeit at the expense of your neighbour(s).
I think putting it into a faraday cage would be easier for a proof than to go to the desert.

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #18, on March 9th, 2014, 04:38 AM »
Quote from bussi04 on March 9th, 2014, 12:49 AM
I think putting it into a faraday cage would be easier for a proof than to go to the desert.
Well, thanks for the suggestion.
I was merely expressing my doubt regarding the 'totally free energy without no strings attached whatsoever' concept that's being advocated in these clips.
I have little doubt as to that they can actually work by homing in on the domestic/national environment and wirelessly steal energy, after all that's what Tesla did more than a century ago, then Moray did the same thing, etc etc.
But sure, I guess a Faraday's cage could do just as well in simulating 'in the middle of absolutely nowhere' ;-)

haiqu

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #19, on March 9th, 2014, 09:08 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on March 8th, 2014, 01:32 AM
Yes and this topic:

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1784.0

Is the most fully complete one so far.  It has PCB gerber files, parts list, schematic, drawings, pictures, the whole works.  If you can't have any success with that, I'm not sure what it's going to take.
What I need before spending my valuable time and sparse cash is replication. Most projects presented on the internet are one-offs that, for an electronics tech, don't make a lot of sense theoretically. Which is not the same as saying they don't work, but confirmation would lend some credibility to the matter.

I've read so many forums where a group of enthusiastic amateurs scurry around coming up with "improvements" and "variations" before even building one working unit, that it's becoming predictable as to the outcome: eventually the thread dies out without a report of anyone having succeeded. Even failure reports would be useful, at least they would eliminate that variation as unworkable.

The "Gabriel Device" is a classic example.

Has anyone ever seen a working Hendershot device? Well, 'nuff said.

As to testing in a desert, I live on a yacht and would be really happy to have something that works in the middle of the Tasman Sea.

Matt Watts

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #20, on March 9th, 2014, 11:50 PM »Last edited on March 9th, 2014, 11:58 PM
Quote from haiqu on March 9th, 2014, 09:08 PM
As to testing in a desert, I live on a yacht and would be really happy to have something that works in the middle of the Tasman Sea.
And if I could ever figure out the secret enough to build multiple units that work well, I would love to send a marine-grade version of one to you.  Maybe you could take me fishing for a couple of weeks.  :)

But for now, I press on--studying and inspecting whatever I can find, looking for a pattern or anything that makes enough sense to attempt to build.

Matt Watts

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #22, on March 14th, 2014, 04:45 AM »Last edited on March 14th, 2014, 07:14 PM
Is there something happening in this little circuit that is clearly not obvious?  And if there is, what sort of timing pulses would need to be sent to the two switches?

Matt Watts

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #23, on March 14th, 2014, 08:41 AM »
I'm sorry, if this is fake, they spent more time figuring out the hoax then they probably would have making it work.

This has to be real and we need to figure out how it works and scale it up.

Lynx

Re: Fully Electronic Free Energy Device
« Reply #24, on March 14th, 2014, 09:22 AM »
Searching for schematics on this one I stumled across this,
Quote
A Free-Energy Device





by Paul Raymond Jensen



I have built a transformer which supplies more power to its load than is drawn from its primary source. I named this device The Unidirectional Transformer (UDT), because the magnetic reaction of the load current does not affect the magnetic action of the primary circuit. The UDT is composed of a parallel LC resonant primary, a split secondary, a gapped magnetic core, and a "feedback winding." Virtually the only input power needed is that used to magnetize the core. The magnetic core I used came from a small 60 Hz commercial power transformer made of interleaved silicon steel E and I laminations. I took the core apart, separated the Es and the Is, and made one stacked E core and one stacked I core from the laminations. Then I filed down the centre leg of the E core about 15 mils (0.381mm) to gap the combined E-I transformer core. The resulting m of the core at 60 Hz was about 100.

The primary winding is wound on the centre leg of the core. The two secondary windings are wound on the two outer legs of the core and are series connected. Both secondary windings have the same number of turns. The "feedback winding" is wound over the primary on the centre leg and is connected in series with the secondary. The free-energy action of the UDT follows directly from the laws of magnetic circuits. Consider what happens when an AC sine voltage is applied to the UDT primary. A magnetizing current flows, which can become rather high because of the low m of the core. Fortunately, gapping the core results in a fairly constant m through the entire AC cycle, up to a peak H of about 720 A-T/M.

This results in a constant primary inductance, which permits parallel LC resonation. Resonating the primary reduces the magnetizing power to that necessary to match I2* R losses in the primary and the hysteresis losses in the core. Magnetizing the core results in an AC sine voltage being induced across the secondary. The magnetic coupling between the primary and the secondary is very high, but the core area within each secondary winding is only one-half that of the primary. This means that the volts/turn of the secondary will be only one-half that of the primary. For the secondary voltage to equal the primary voltage, the secondary must have two times the number of turns in the primary.

The primary also induces a voltage across the feedback coil, but the purpose and characteristics of the feedback coil will be explained later. When a current is drawn from the output, the two secondary windings each generate a magnetomotive force (MMF) directed against the MMF of the primary. The MMF of each secondary winding "sees" a series-parallel magnetic circuit through the transformer core. One magnetic circuit, "seen" by each secondary winding, is through the centre leg of the core. The other magnetic circuit "seen" by each secondary winding is through the two outer legs of the core. The resulting magnetic flux generated by the MMFs of the two secondary windings is dependent upon the reluctances of each of the magnetic circuits.

Because the centre leg is gapped, it has a higher reluctance than do the outer legs. This means that less magnetic flux from the secondary will pass through the centre leg than will pass through the outer legs.

In my transformer, the reluctances of the magnetic circuits through the centre leg were three times higher than the reluctances of the magnetic circuits through both outer legs. This was difficult to achieve and required hours of filing, polishing and fitting of the E and I cores. The alternative was to increase the gap, which was not acceptable in my particular design because I was driving the transformer at 60 Hz and could not afford any additional loss of m in the core.

Since the reluctances of the "centre leg circuits" were three times higher than the reluctances of the "outer leg circuits," one-quarter of the secondary flux passed through the centre leg, while three-quarters of the secondary flux passed through both outer legs. The magnetic flux from the two secondary windings cancels in the "outer leg circuits," leaving only one-quarter of the total flux generated by the output current to react back upon the primary. This resulted in a current gain in the secondary, relative to the primary. Lenz's law was bypassed, and free-energy resulted. An alternate explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider each secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the other secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the two secondary windings generate geometrically opposing fields.

Now consider the "feedback winding." It is connected in series with the secondary and is wound over the primary winding on the centre leg of the core. When the core is magnetized, an induced voltage will appear across the feedback winding which will subtract from the voltage across the secondary. The purpose of the feedback winding is to cancel the remaining secondary flux passing through the centre leg of the core. It effectively isolates the currents in the primary and the secondary at the cost of a reduced output voltage. The feedback winding generates a magnetic flux equal and opposite to the residual magnetic flux from the secondary when an output current is drawn.

Given the above example, where three-quarters of the secondary flux self-cancels in the "outer leg circuits," the feedback coil will only have to oppose one-quarter of the total secondary flux. Since the feedback winding has two times the core area of the secondary windings and carries the full output current, it need have only one-quarter the number of turns of each secondary winding. However, this will reduce the output voltage by 25 percent. Therefore, to achieve the originally desired output voltage, the total number of secondary turns must be increased by the factor 4/3; the feedback coil must then have one-quarter of the number of turns of each secondary winding in this new secondary circuit.

Given the condition in which the feedback coil perfectly cancels all the residual secondary flux through the centre leg of the core, the power drawn from the output will be nearly independent of the primary input power. The primary input will be the magnetizing power and nothing more. The output power will have a negligible phase angle (due to the leakage inductance) if the m of the core (as seen by the primary) is at least 100. In practice, it is best if the feedback winding is short a turn or two, thereby preventing series inductance in the output at the cost of a small increase in the primary input power. A parallel resonant primary circuit allows for great input power reduction while ensuring voltage stability and linear operation under varying output loads.

The UDT can be used without a resonant primary circuit for the amplification of any time-varying signal. The main flaws of the UDT are the (normally) low primary m and the very long secondary wire required to ensure isolation of the input from the output. A single or double stack of E-I laminations seems to provide the optimum core geometry, all factors considered. At high frequencies it becomes practical to use ferrite cores with "centre leg circuit" reluctances less than their "outer leg circuit" reluctances because the volts/turn of each winding can be made very high. Conventional transformer design techniques should be used once the basic UDT topology has been determined.

I have invented and developed the UDT on my own, without benefit of any knowledge of other free-energy devices, if they exist, which utilize the basic principles of UDT operation. Please feel free to use this information as you desire. However, I hope that no one will attempt to patent and control this type of transformer. The time on Planet Earth is 15 minutes before midnight; there is no time left to waste.

Free-energy technology is not meant to be controlled by vain and greedy parasites who wish to use a gift from God to exploit their fellow man. Free-energy technology represents a spiritual transition of the human race. Free-energy is not meant to be owned, period!



UDT EQUATIONS

Number of Turns = N

a = V(output)/V(primary)

V(Primary)/N(Primary) = V(feedback)/N(feedback) = V(secondary)/N(secondary)/2

N(feedback) = [N(secondary)/2] [(R of outer circuit)/(R of outer circuit)+(R of centre circuit)]

a[N(Primary)] = [N(secondary)/2)-N(feedback)]

R = Reluctance = Y/mA
Btw, the schematics for your find, the GLED, can be found here, http://realstrannik.ru/forum/temy-atom/134569-qgenerator-na-nelinejnoj-induktivnostiq-rekonstrukcziya-sxemy-i-pechatnoj-platy.html?start=36#176419, which is in the same thread.
Are the redcoats on to something.......?