PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-12-20, 09:41:07
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 23
Author Topic: Bedini 10-Coil Alternative Discussion  (Read 72894 times)
Group: Guest
I tend to stay either positive or quiet when we may convince a new person to join us. It is bad enough working in this field while sticking your neck out. There is a falling axe around every corner. Some of the axes are so dull witted they couldn't cut warm butter. Not that the Bedini folks are correct in their claims. I don't follow his work, for good reason. Again, positive or quiet  ;D

I can see where Bedini followers could think voltage is the only thing charging a battery, especially when you are hitting the battery with spikes. In my view, it isn't that the voltage is charging the battery(beyond the correct sense). It is because the spikes could make the battery perform better simply by cleaning the plates and moving the chemical elements back where they started.
Bang it enough and the battery will charge better and hold a charge longer. Bang it a bit more and you need to replace the battery because 'voltage' is the only thing it will hold. Energy storage capacity flattens. The exact opposite happens to the load curve.


   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I'd like to see a battery charger that really used the radiant force.  Imagine it inducing current between the plates, with out contacting the battery at all.  Just put your battery in the magic box, turn on the pulser and bias field - Wha-La! - it charges.

Got is all sketched up, but couldn't get the funding - LOL!
   
Group: Guest
I tend to stay either positive or quiet when we may convince a new person to join us. It is bad enough working in this field while sticking your neck out. There is a falling axe around every corner. Some of the axes are so dull witted they couldn't cut warm butter. Not that the Bedini folks are correct in their claims. I don't follow his work, for good reason. Again, positive or quiet  ;D

Guys - I've become a 'lurker' on this forum.  Not because it's preferred - but because the entire forum has become a kind of 'exclusive club' where membership requires a specialised training in conventional thinking.  Any departures and the thinking is dismissed for being 'unconventional'.  I wonder if you would all do better to start questioning your own conventional thinking on many, many levels.  Start with the flow of electrons as the cause of current flow.  Then maybe look to where dark energy is perhaps a valid requirement to be included in the forces.  Or just take the evidence of OU at face value and test those claims.  If science had all the answers then I honestly do not think there'd be this obsessive interest in breaching those barriers.  You really do NOT have all the answers.  At least Grumpy keeps that optimistic reach into the 'maybe's'.  My own take is that you have all complicated circuitry to such an extent that even if you reached that OU number you'd be left with some required explanation.  It's all become so, so complicated. 

But that's just my tuppence worth.  I'd be sorry to lose my membership here for speaking my mind like this.  I honestly think that it would be a good thing to explore conventional phsyics and see if you can, yourselves, reconcile that quantum/classical number.  Then all that smug analysis would be really justified.  Else it's just really dry and really repetitive.  And it's going nowhere.  MileHigh?  Don't you see this?  Not meaning to be argumentative.  I'm just saying it as I see it.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Guys - I've become a 'lurker' on this forum.  Not because it's preferred - but because the entire forum has become a kind of 'exclusive club' where membership requires a specialised training in conventional thinking.  Any departures and the thinking is dismissed for being 'unconventional'.  I wonder if you would all do better to start questioning your own conventional thinking on many, many levels.  Start with the flow of electrons as the cause of current flow.  Then maybe look to where dark energy is perhaps a valid requirement to be included in the forces.  Or just take the evidence of OU at face value and test those claims.  If science had all the answers then I honestly do not think there'd be this obsessive interest in breaching those barriers.  You really do NOT have all the answers.  At least Grumpy keeps that optimistic reach into the 'maybe's'.  My own take is that you have all complicated circuitry to such an extent that even if you reached that OU number you'd be left with some required explanation.  It's all become so, so complicated. 

But that's just my tuppence worth.  I'd be sorry to lose my membership here for speaking my mind like this.  I honestly think that it would be a good thing to explore conventional phsyics and see if you can, yourselves, reconcile that quantum/classical number.  Then all that smug analysis would be really justified.  Else it's just really dry and really repetitive.  And it's going nowhere.  MileHigh?  Don't you see this?  Not meaning to be argumentative.  I'm just saying it as I see it.

The flow of electrons is the result of an interaction of things.  It doesn't "just happen".  That is where to start though.  Dielectrics are also effected but the electrons/ions are not free to move.
   
Group: Guest
If speaking your mind was an membership offense I would not be here now.
As for dark matter and energy, I think the whole concept should be thrown out. There are other explanations which may solve other riddles.
As for classics, they have little more value than other ideas not examined on my bench.
I'll not expand on my Bedini thoughts as my blood pressure medication isn't working well lately.
 
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
As to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others.  I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick.  If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries.  Oh but any day now sombody is going to put a coil and a capacitor together in some new way that is going to produce overunity. I for one can't agree that the answer is simple in terms of anyone and their grandmother being capable of building it.  But what does it matter? if any one person can do it then some others will certainly be able to reproduce it and grandma wont have to, we'll make one for her.  ;D


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

It's all about finding the truth.  "Radiant energy" is not really clearly defined in free energy circles, but with respect to a Bedini motor, a discharging inductor is certainly not radiant energy.  Nor is it what Aaron calls "time compressed potential."  There is no tapping into the aether or Dark Energy or taking advantage of asymmetrical stresses with a discharging inductor.  It's nonsense.  Seemingly the pitch from the Bedini camp is two-faced, there are denials that a Bedini motor is a free energy device, but apparently on the EFTV DVD series there is an alleged claim that it is a free energy device.  I am hoping that someone can confirm this is a fact.  Assuming this dichotomy is true, well that sucks and the record should be set straight.  However, the dichotomy must be good for sales.

The goal in this thread is to bring a true understanding of what the Bedini 10-coiler is an does, and by extension the same thing for any Bedini motor.

I have lurked in your threads, and you still don't understand what current is.  You make an argument that it is impossible to supply all of the electrons that the electrical grid is supposed to supply.  I remember you also believed that a battery was a source of electrons and when it is discharged it runs out of electrons.  In both cases the current is circulating in a closed loop just like looking at a pipe configured in a closed loop with an in-line water pump.  If your thesis is based on this misunderstanding, then the whole thesis is rendered baseless.  I am not sure is this is the case or not.

My thinking can take lots of departures and I can suggest alternative ways to make measurements and alternative ways to try to understand something.  Who is wearing the straitjacket is a relative thing.  In a nutshell, one of the classic statements you often read is that a given setup is "outside the norms of conventional electricity and conventional engineering."  That claim about Bedini motors was made in this thread by John K.  In basically every case these types of claims are nonsensical statements.  The people that think that they are doing something different are not aware that every single thing that they are doing is conventional.  They are clearly demonstrating their ignorance.  It's up to them if they want to learn.  I will pick on Aaron because there is a glaring example.  For 10+ years Aaron was sure that when an inductor discharges the current running through it would reverse direction.   He thought that because he saw the voltage change polarity.  He even made an "educational" clip on YouTube about inductors where he stated this fallacy.  So it's fun to try to help people really understand what's going on.

There is no obsessive interest in breaching energy barriers among scientists.  Almost all of that "energy" comes from "experimenters" who mostly, and unfortunately, have no training or education at all in electronics and physics and related disciplines.  The ones that actively contribute to the free energy forums are prone to gobbling up questionable information and accepting it as fact.  They also have money to spend.

The smug analysis is real.  Sometimes it gets tiring composing politically correct prose all the time and I just type without the extra stress of making it all PC.  It's too bad that no Bedini enthusiasts are dropping by to exchange ideas.

You may think this thread is going nowhere, but at least in two weeks it covered more ground than the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread has covered in six months.  If somebody has a Bedini setup and wants to come here and understand it they are welcome here.  The 10-coilers are not making a peep.  This thread has the potential to cover a lot more ground, but it needs real participants.  It's the "real" Bedini 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum that is going nowhere.  The last posting is by an unknown where he throws out a bunch of meaningless measurements and numbers and is asking for advice.  Nobody has responded.

There is no reason to ban you Rosemary.  As far as I know the last person around here to get banned was IST and anybody familiar with the "scene" knows why that is - he makes dozens and dozens of nut-case postings a day.  For what it's worth, he is also completely, and I mean completely, clueless.

Anyway, the tread is here and if no Bedini people drop by I will continue to make ongoing occasional postings.

MileHigh
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 276
Hi All,
If in our blindness to achieve the OU magic we see the coils etc as the afore mentioned cart, then by now its rolling on vacuum magnetic bearings. The unfortunate part is that none here have constructed the thing on the top of the hill. Just one simple push and away it goes.
The aether may have some relative equilibrium that needs a shove, but only a few seem to have done this, typically they have not shared this info or are too scared, maybe in the case of some an untimely demise forced upon them by unknowns. Until this 'hill' is at least observed we are close. Time will tell, unless that inherent human emotion impinges on them, we here call it greed.
Searching still for a paper I had stating clearly OU can be achieved by a simple coil with the secondary wound from many insulated fine wires around it in the fashion of a bobbin of string as purchased from the local store. More than one coil is required and the 'ground' connection between all is where the excess energy appears. Assuming the energy is captured from the secondaries its supposed to add up to more out than in by a small fraction.
Impedance matching required, the rest I didn't read at that time but ten coiler reminded me of it. The TPU may operate in a similar fashion too. Where its gone is a total mystery and Ive been searching for quite a long time now.
One pulse produces ringing and theres a delay in it and this causes a current flow in the 'ground' connection. Nothing complicated but the pulse width and rise times needed to be ... It read like this.
Anyone come across anything sounding similar. It was towards the bottom of the page but the rest mentioned Sweet,  Hendershot and others.
   
Group: Guest
Szaxx:

if you find the paper you should start a thread about it.

On the other Bedini 10-coiler thread, they go off on the "ground chase" and one of them wants to drill into his concrete basement to find a good earth ground.  Yikes!

Connecting to a true earth ground does nothing except create another path for energy to flow out of the battery.  So they see a light bulb brighten or a voltage increase and they seem convinced that "energy is coming up from the ground" when in reality energy is flowing out of the source battery more easily.  The overall impedance of the motor relative to the source battery decreases when they make a ground connection.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Room3327
Quote
As to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others.  I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick.  If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries.

I have found my greatest insights have been made by understanding that even the most complex problem is always fundamentally simple after the fact. The airplane is simple yet for centuries nobody could build one that flew, the light bulb is simple yet for centuries nobody could make one light. A caveman could have made a light bulb or an airplane or a wheel if he had the understanding and perspective to do so --- but he didn't. So you see some things can be very simple in nature yet be completely unknown until someone comes along and explains just how simple it is. To say "If it was simple it would have already been done by now" is absurd because simple new technologies appear each and every day. If everything simple must have been done by now then why do we have so many new and simple technologies emerging at a rate magnitudes higher than any other time in history? The creation of technology relies on understanding and perspective, not simplicity nor complexity, not man hours or people or time --- understanding and perspective.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Hi guys.  I never actually signed up for membership here and I now see that I'm not getting notification of posts.  Poynty - can you organise it that I get emailed?  Do you guys have that system here?  Be much obliged if it's available.

Hello MileHigh.  I now, like you, bear the distinction of being 'expelled' from EF.com.  It's a distinction I carry with some pride.  But I must say I would like nothing better than to nuke those administrators with litigation from hell.  It it weren't so expensive I'd do so.  And if I EVER make any money from our application - then I'll dedicate the whole of it to such a cause.  It'll at least bring some much needed publicity to their smug duplicitous manouverings.  What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites.  You can probably tell I'm still smarting.  I lack your own philosophical forebearance at these events. 

I have lurked in your threads, and you still don't understand what current is.  You make an argument that it is impossible to supply all of the electrons that the electrical grid is supposed to supply.  I remember you also believed that a battery was a source of electrons and when it is discharged it runs out of electrons.  
This is nonsense - with respect.  I have never believed that a battery discharges electrons - EVER.  I've gone to some considerable lengths to assert that it doesn't.   

In both cases the current is circulating in a closed loop just like looking at a pipe configured in a closed loop with an in-line water pump.  If your thesis is based on this misunderstanding, then the whole thesis is rendered baseless.  I am not sure is this is the case or not.
And I must say I'm with you here - re the closed loop number.  My thesis is not baseless.  It's just really badly explained.  I'm hoping to fix that through a collaboration.  But we're in early stages of 'talk'.

Regarding JohnK - et al - I wonder if the actual problem relates to the need for good measurements.  My complaint here is simply that one can get so engrossed in irrelevant measurements that one stops seeing the wood for the trees.  There's also an easy 'proof' - I would have thought.  Somehow it's never actually applied.  Or it's done for short durations. 

There is no obsessive interest in breaching energy barriers among scientists.  Almost all of that "energy" comes from "experimenters" who mostly, and unfortunately, have no training or education at all in electronics and physics and related disciplines.  The ones that actively contribute to the free energy forums are prone to gobbling up questionable information and accepting it as fact.  They also have money to spend.
Not sure that this is fair comment.  I know of some serious investment into institutions in SA to advance alternate energy.  And there's budget for those anomalous claims which definitely means that all avenues are being explored.  That's far down the road from 10 years back.  I assure you.  But I can't speak for those expert scientists outside our country.

The smug analysis is real.  Sometimes it gets tiring composing politically correct prose all the time and I just type without the extra stress of making it all PC.  It's too bad that no Bedini enthusiasts are dropping by to exchange ideas.
LOL MileHigh.  I think the most of us are rather wary of when you give way to all that stress.   ::)

You may think this thread is going nowhere, but at least in two weeks it covered more ground than the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread has covered in six months.  If somebody has a Bedini setup and wants to come here and understand it they are welcome here.  The 10-coilers are not making a peep.  This thread has the potential to cover a lot more ground, but it needs real participants.  It's the "real" Bedini 10-coiler thread on the Energetic Forum that is going nowhere.  The last posting is by an unknown where he throws out a bunch of meaningless measurements and numbers and is asking for advice.  Nobody has responded.
Frankly I don't think they read OUR.  You'll need to pm them somehow.  Get word there.  I see how you're itching to cover ground here.  Maybe Armaggdn can drop word there for you? 

Anyway, the tread is here and if no Bedini people drop by I will continue to make ongoing occasional postings.
And if it's any comfort MileHigh I'll continue to read them. 

 :)
   
Group: Guest
If speaking your mind was an membership offense I would not be here now.
As for dark matter and energy, I think the whole concept should be thrown out. There are other explanations which may solve other riddles.
As for classics, they have little more value than other ideas not examined on my bench.
I'll not expand on my Bedini thoughts as my blood pressure medication isn't working well lately.
 
Hi WaveWatcher.  Dark matter and dark energy are no longer thesis.  They're full blown theory with proof based on gravitational lensing.  I'm not sure of the experts here but they're from Caltech.  But it's not caught fire with our classicists because it's calling for a new force.  So it's not been structured into general physics and - inevitably - there's resistance.  Our mainstream scientists are patently somewhat reluctant to concede that they missed out on a really significant piece of the puzzle.  But however it's described - it's actually just a revamp of aether energies.

Anyway if you want me to I'll get the whole reference.  I've got a full transcript of an interview with these guys somewhere.  The thing about it is that it actually does resolve certain questions in physics related to gravity.  But they've no idea yet what the particle is.  It's due to be uncovered in CERN  - I think - when they've finished that upgrade.   
   
Group: Guest
As to the complexity, what is complex to one person is very simple to others.  I think it is rather obvious by now that simplicity is not going to do the trick.  If it was simple it would have already been done by now, do you know how many people have been working on these ideas and how many man hours have been put into it over what, maybe centuries.  Oh but any day now sombody is going to put a coil and a capacitor together in some new way that is going to produce overunity. I for one can't agree that the answer is simple in terms of anyone and their grandmother being capable of building it.  But what does it matter? if any one person can do it then some others will certainly be able to reproduce it and grandma wont have to, we'll make one for her.  ;D

I think even more obvious is that complexity doesn't cut it either.  Personally I think everyone is in a tail spin because you're looking at the same problem from the same perspective - and just adding coils to try and solve it.  Something like that.  LOL.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
So are you telling me that only simplicity is accepted at these forums, anyone with complex ideas stay away.  The basic ideas may be simple but implementation may be very difficult, who knows what it is going to take?  Should we not post what we are doing because 80% don't understand and can't reproduce.  I don't think it matters if everyone can follow what I am doing, I'm not going to dumb myself down to the lowest common denominator because it is too difficult for some people.  Yes an airplane is simple after the fact, but build me one!  The complexity is enormous, can anyone here build an airplane?


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
So are you telling me that only simplicity is accepted at these forums, anyone with complex ideas stay away.  The basic ideas may be simple but implementation may very difficult, who knows what it is going to take?  Should we not post what we are doing because 80% don't understand and can't reproduce.  I don't think it matters if everyone can follow what I am doing, I'm not going to dumb myself down to the lowest common denominator because it is too difficult for some people.  Yes an airplane is simple after the fact, but build me one!  The complexity is enormous, can anyone here build an airplane?
I'm really not in a position to tell you anything at all Room3327.  I'm only suggesting that - in my humble opinion - the more complex the circuit does not necessarily produce the better result.  I think a better analogy  - as you're using aircraft - is the fact that one can get a glider to fly without any motors - but it does not thereby make it a more efficient machine. Just that it works and speaks to the aerodynamic forces somewhat more simply than motorised flight.  The problem being that those 'aerodynamic forces' are here analogous to the electromagnetic force and that is NOT fully understood.  It is only well exploited.  But that's only my opinion.  If you know that I'm wrong - then I'm happy.  This is one thing I'd prefer to be wrong about than right - quite frankly.   
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
You know I have to laugh, sorry, but I have tried to keep the circuits I have presented as simple as possible and yet perform well without self destructing.  I guess I have worked with complexity too long.  Ask most any Electronic engineer if my circuits are complicated they too will laugh, We deal on a daily basis with circuits that are 100 to 1000 times more complex then what I have shown, a single integrated circuit in your cell phone has 1000 times more circuitry then the most complex thing I have posted.  Everything is a matter of degree, it depends on where you are viewing things from.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:  Thanks for your comments and I will keep on keeping on on this thread.

Okay, I am going to tackle the single-strand vs. multi-strand coil configuration and we will see what happens.  I am going to do this on the fly.  The whole analysis will be done with rationalized units.

Only Poynt made some comments about this issue which were correct, so lets try to dig deeper.

For starters, lets call the single-strand coil the "Single"  Lets call the multi-strand coil the "Multi."

Let's assume that the Multi has eight strands and each strand consists of eight turns.  For the Single, assume that the single strand has 64 turns.

Let's say that the resistance of each wire in the Multi is "R."  Therefore the resistance of the Single is 8R and the resistance of the Multi is R/8.

Let's say that the current going through the Single is "I."  We want to work with the same amount of current through each strand for the Multi, therefore the current through the Multi is 8I.

Lets say that the inductance of the Multi is "L."  Since we know that the inductance of a coil is proportional to the square of the number of turns, then the inductance of the Single is 64L.

The key point about the Multi is that the eight eight-turn strands give you the same amount of inductance as a single eight-turn strand.  This can be easily proved with a thought experiment, if you have the spark!

Single stats:

Resistance = 8R
Inductance = 64L
Current = I

Multi Stats:

Resistance = R/8
Inductance = L
Current = 8I

Okay, now that we have defined the two coil configurations in terms of rationalized units, let's see what we can learn from this.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-04, 23:54:37 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
So let's look at the energy storage in each coil.  Of course the formula is one-half * Inductance * Current-squared.

Single:

Energy_Single @ current of I = 1/2 * 64L * I * I  = 32 * L * I-squared

Multi:

Energy_Multi @ current of 8I = 1/2 * L * 8I * 8I  = 32 * L * I-squared


So what is this telling us?  The first thing you notice is that for the Single and the Multi, they will store exactly the same amount of energy if the amount of current through the single strand of the Single is the same for each individual strand of the Multi.

In other words, as long as the same amount of current is flowing though all the wires, be it Single or Multi, the coil will store exactly the same amount of energy for transfer into the charging battery.

The big difference is that the initial current when the Single starts to discharge is I, and for the Multi it is 8I.   So the Multi can hit the battery with a much larger initial pulse of current, and that will result in an initial voltage spike that is eight times higher in potential.

So if you are working with a 10-coiler, you should be very interested in knowing precisely how much current there is in the initial wallop since all of the coils are multi-strand.  Can your battery take it?  Are you comfortable if it is very high?  Do you want to control it and reduce it?  All very interesting questions.

I am pleased to be the first person to raise this issue.  Anyone that works with a 10-coiler should want to have an understanding of, and control over, the magnitude of the initial pulse of current that goes into the charging battery.

That raises a big question, how do you measure the magnitude of the initial current pulse?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Okay, so we know that if we connect a very good beefy source battery to the Single or the Multi, that the same amount of energy will be released when either coil discharges, if the Multi is drawing 8X the current from the battery when the transistor(s) switch off.

With the same amount of total energy, but with a much higher initial current spike from the Multi, common sense says that the Multi must discharge faster than the Single.

Let's take a look and see.  Here you should look up "LR circuit" or "RL circuit."  Wikipedia has good explanations as well as the HyperPhysics web site.  In a nutshell, when an inductor discharges through a resistor, the current and voltage waveforms undergo an exponential decay.  The same thing happens when a capacitor discharges through a resistor.  Any exponentially decaying waveform has it's associated "time-constant" which is a measurement of how long it takes the voltage or current to decay by 63%.

The formula for the time-constant of an RL circut is inductance/resistance.

We are introducing a new variable here, an external resistance that the coil is discharging into.  Let's call this resistance R_Ext.

IMPORTANT:  We are making an important assumption here:  We are assuming that the external resistance R_Ext is much larger than the internal resistance of the battery plus the resistance of the wires in the Single or Multi coil.  This is a reasonable thing to assume for the purposes of this exercise.

Single:

Load Resistance = R_Ext
Inductance = 64L

Single_Time-Constant = 64L/R_Ext.

Multi:

Load Resistance = R_Ext
Inductance = L

Multi_Time-Constant = L /R_Ext.


So the above is showing you that the Multi coil configuration typically charges or discharges (or energizes and de-energizes, same thing) 64 times faster than the Single coil configuration, assuming that we can ignore the battery internal resistance and the resistance of the wires.

This has HUGE ramifications with respect to your Bedini timing circuit.  It is reasonable to assume that you can't go from a Bedini motor based on Single-type coils to a motor based on Multi-type coils without taking a serious look at the timing circuit.  If you are using the standard pick-up coil setup to time the firing of your transistor(s), then chances are you are energizing the Multi-type coils for way too long.

If you are indeed energizing your Multi-type coils for too long, then you are simply pouring battery energy down the drain.  People that know their Bedini motors know that they typically want to energize their main firing coils by one time-constant or less.  For Multi-type coil, that would be only 1/64th the amount of time compared to a Single-type coil.

Now going back to the real Bedini setup with respect to the coil discharges, you don't have an external load resistor, you have a charging battery.  The charging battery effectively looks like a non-linear resistor.  Since the resistance is non-linear, you loose the beautiful exponential discharging waveform for the voltage and current pulses.  Instead, you get a non-standard variation on an exponential waveform.  HOWEVER, you can still say with confidence that the Multi-type coil will discharge approximately 64 times faster into the charging battery as compared to the Single-type coil.

So in a nutshell:  The Multi-type coil gets charged up by the source battery approximately 64 times faster than the Single-type coil, and it also discharges into the charging battery approximately 64 times faster.

Therefore there are two things to watch out for with a Multi-type coil as compared to a "standard" Single-type coil configuration:

1)  Am I switching on the transistors for too long when I energize the Multi-type coil and decreasing the charging efficiency of the motor?
2)  Am I whacking the charging battery with a pulse of current that is to large and too short in duration?   There is a risk that the battery gets overwhelmed and instead of charging, just acts like a resistor and gets hot instead, which also decreases the charging efficiency of the motor.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
For later, the time will come to discuss the energy and power issues with respect to the 10-coiler-type configuration.  This fundamental stuff is almost never discussed - what is my power consumption and what is my power output?  How much energy did I draw from my source battery and how much energy can I get back from my charging battery.  You simply can't do this by making battery voltage measurements.

For a later day.  Anyone that is working with a Bedini motor should be concerned with these issues.  Forget about your RPMs, quite honestly it's almost garbage data with no real use.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-05, 01:46:16 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Hi WaveWatcher.  Dark matter and dark energy are no longer thesis. 

Agreed! They are now full-blown fudge-factors  ;D

Just in the nick of time, the mathematicians and physicists are straining to account for the evidence.
   
Group: Guest
Agreed! They are now full-blown fudge-factors  ;D
Not sure of the term 'fudge-factor' - unless you mean an 'in your face' quantifiable upending of known physical principles as propounded by our learned and revered with the full force and weight of their mathematical obfuscations - over a couple of centuries or more?  In which case 'fudge-factor' is DEFINITELY the right term. Just seems inadequate somehow.  LOL

Just in the nick of time, the mathematicians and physicists are straining to account for the evidence.
No WaveWatcher.  I wish this was so.  In fact the most of them have lined up and joined hands to defend that obsolete library that they've used for reference.  They're defending this from an attack of free thinking independent logicians who prefer to establish the truth from nature rather than presume to advise nature as per that really OLD, OLD school.  LOL.  But I get it you're ambivalent?  In which case this post will NOT add to your blood pressure.  That's a really good thing.  LOL.   ;D  I'm on that attack line and I REALLY want to kiss goodbye to all that supposed authority.  It either needs rejuvenation or it needs to trashed.  No other options.  Else we'll be stuck in the mud forever.  And tempus is fugitting.  At SPEED.  ;D
   
Group: Guest
For later, the time will come to discuss the energy and power issues with respect to the 10-coiler-type configuration.  This fundamental stuff is almost never discussed - what is my power consumption and what is my power output?  How much energy did I draw from my source battery and how much energy can I get back from my charging battery.  You simply can't do this by making battery voltage measurements.

For a later day.  Anyone that is working with a Bedini motor should be concerned with these issues.  Forget about your RPMs, quite honestly it's almost garbage data with no real use.

MileHigh
Hi MileHigh.  Am I missing something?  I get it from these arguments that the returning energy from multiple coils will be greater than from a single coil?  That's surely NOT what you're arguing?  If the input energy in both instances is the same then the returning energy from multiple coils should still be the same.  Surely?  Sorry if I've missed the point - which is more than likely.  Can I impose on you here?  But if it simply holds you up - don't bother.   :)

   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary:

More coils might get you more power, but never more power than in supplied by the source battery.

Not to open up a big current debate but I plucked some of your writing:

Quote
Then there's another problem with the concept of electrons flowing anywhere at all.  Say one charges a flat battery from a wall plug.  Then the idea is that the battery will be replenished with electrons to reconstitute the charged property of the electrolytes.  But any chemist  will assure you that there has been no loss of electrons in the mix.  They have just been re-ordered in the molecular arrangement through that electrolytic process.  Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?

The battery is NOT replenished with electrons.  The electrons give up their energy and that drives the reverse chemical reaction in the electrolyte.  100 electrons give up their energy and 50 chemical reactions are "powered" by this giving up of energy by the electrons, or whatever.  Your metabolism uses the "electron transport cycle" to do a "slow burn" of the same energy, that's why your body is warm.

Think of a hot water tank.  Cold water molecules enter at the bottom and hot water molecules exit at the top.  They are the same molecules, but at a higher energy state when they leave the tank.  The tank puts energy into the water molecules at a certain power rate.  That's EXACTLY what a battery does.

There is an analogy between the water molecules and electrons.  It's kind of like thinking that the battery receives "cold" electrons at ground potential at the negative terminal and outputs "hot" electrons at higher potential at the positive terminal.  In reality the electrons are going in the opposite direction, but it's easier to visualize it the "backwards" way.

I'll even go out on a limb and do water and pressure.  Take a long hose in a big circular loop with an in-line water pump.  In this case the water pump is acting like a battery.  Water enters the pump at low pressure on one side and exits the pump at high pressure on the other side.  The water pump is acting like a battery and the long hose is acting like a resistor.  The hose is literally giving off heat when you do this.  That's because the high pressure water molecules are "giving up" some of their energy and as result they loose some pressure.  If you could measure the pressure along the length of the hose you would observe the pressure dropping the further you are away from the pump output.

I am making reference to a pump that can generate a certain amount of pressure.  If you block the hose then the pressure is at the maximum and the water flow stops.  That's just like a battery, it's a voltage source.

If you change to a different type of pump, one that has pistons like an automobile engine, that pump produces a fixed flow rate.  With that kind of pump if you try to block the hose you can't.  The pistons will keep on pushing water and the hose will burst because the pressure will get too high.  Voila, that type of pump is identical to a current source.  I have already said dozens of times in this thread that discharging coils are current sources, not voltage sources.  There's your analogy for that.

The concept of current flow makes perfect sense, just like the concept of flowing hot water giving up it's energy to heat the radiators in a house and then circulating back to the hot water heater to start the whole process all over again.  You can substitute the radiators with electric baseboard heaters (resistors) and now you are doing the same thing with electrons.

I hope you can grasp that because I don't want to hijack my own thread.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-06, 02:59:26 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Hello MileHigh. There are 'flaws' in your concepts here.  For instance how does an electron, which is a stable particle, ever 'give up' it's energy?  If it's the 'velocity factor' - then the average electron would need to come to a grinding halt inside those atomic energy levels - or at least slow down.  And in a recharging battery it would need to return to the plug source with rather less energy than it had when it first left that plug source.   Neither are evident.   But thank you for the explanation.  I do think that 'water pressure' and most analogies to water and current flow are really good.  Very clear.  I certainly did NOT expect a discussion on current flow.  And I am NOT looking for converts - or NOT on this forum.  It's not important MileHigh - or not to your discussion here.

Just go back to post 66 or 67?  Not sure which.  You're arguing that the 10 coiler will result in more energy output.  But I may have read it wrong.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED.  Here it is.
'Let's say that the current going through the Single is "I."  We want to work with the same amount of current through each strand for the Multi, therefore the current through the Multi is 8I.'  If that's 8*i then that's way more current than in the single strand.  Surely?  Unless you're arguing that you're just getting more power from the source through the multi coil number?  I would have thought that the multi coil would offer a greater resistance to current flow.  But I'm open to correction.
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 23
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-12-20, 09:41:07