 |
There are currently, 106 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Closed loop vs open loops for free energy 'conversion'
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 @ 12:53:59 GMT by vlad
|
|
Jerry Decker [KeelyNet] writes: Hola Folks!
I have been pondering something for quite awhile now....trying to decide whether its a black or white choice OR are there shades of gray?
John Bedini and Tom Bearden often say 'one cannot close the loop' and extract free energy/overunity.
To my understanding and perspective, this 'loop' required that the circuit or mechanism MUST BE SELF-CONTAINED without any outside source of power. That it must run not only itself but ALSO additional loads.
When Bedini and Bearden say 'there can be no closed loop overunity device', I have to respect their opinions because they have done far more than I think it allows too much room for error.
What it breaks down to....is that no one in the alternative science field to my knowledge ever said they were trying to create energy.
They only said they were trying to CONVERT energy from one form to another more useable form, something we do everyday in many ways.
So when they say 'the loop cannot be closed,' I think this is what they are referring to...that it would in time quench itself and run down eventually without being OPEN to outside inflowing energies which the device would have to attract or accumulate to use.
My argument that such a device MUST BE CLOSED to prove that it is truly self-powering relies on the passage of other energies, aether/zpe, heat, gravity, frequencies, etc...into the circuit/mechanism because no device or circuit can ever TRULY BE.......'CLOSED'....
One of the old books talks about making a chamber which would prevent the influx of aether/gravity which would cause the thing to repel from the planet at high velocity since nothing would be holding it down and another book hints it would destroy the object with nothing to hold it TOGETHER.
This 'Closed' versus 'Open' loop business is a bit confusing and I detest semantic entanglements which is why I've thought about this a long time before posting it...I find that John Bedini is excellent at planting such 'seeds' which eventually hatch...
Though sometimes I wish he'd explain it up front but then why cast pearls before swine?
If we REALLY do want to know, we'll think about it, we'll experiment with it and study it, not just ask those who have 'been there and done that' to give it all up just because we ask, expecting it all to be explained to us like little children. I do appreciate the reasons behind it.
So, in my view, to put a point on it;
1) An 'open loop' refers to absorbing ambient, local or outside energies which are converted to useful forms. This definition allows for free energy/overunity devices to be powered from an outside source yet yield more output than what is input.
2) A 'closed loop' refers to a self-contained unit, which converts sufficient power to run itself and sustain a load.
My preference is for the closed loop definition because there are so many circuits which claim overunity yet which require an external power input to keep it running. When any external source is used, there can be hidden paths, errors of measurement, errors of calculation, all of which can easily mislead the unwary.
With the definition of a closed loop requiring that machine run truly STANDALONE without any external source other than possibly an excitatory impulse to kick start it, it is far more likely to be truly a working free energy device, simply because it runs standalone.
This is the type of machine/circuit I have sought for so many years. The wonder of a unit running day in, day out, providing power for a load or your house, without needing any trigger or sustained, though low power input, would be the best single proof anyone could ever ask for.
There are devices out there which claim to output more than they use from an external source, Bedini motors, the Gray motor, the MRA, the MEG, Coler, etc...yet nothing practical has come of them to my knowledge. Practical meaning used in an everyday situation by many people the world over. Not a lab queen, but a production/consumer oriented device.
To my view, if the unit is TRULY self running and producing true overunity, it should be possible to provide just enough power to provide the 'trigger(s)' necessary to keep the thing running.
The open loop trigger method (requiring an outside trigger/power source) is clearly shown in Eric Vogels recent post about Minato again coming to the forefront, using electromagnet coils along with the attraction/repulsion of static magnets to reduce power drain to only about 20% of normal motors.
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m15290.html
I wonder what would happen if Minato attached a generator that would make just enough power to trigger the electromagnets, thus 'closing the loop' and making the motor self-sustaining, converting the magnetic forces into thrust.
It sounds much like Johnson, Gray, Bedini and Konzen, all of which require external power yet claim overunity.
The Lutec machine appears to be a 'closed loop' system since it does exactly that, extra energy feeds batteries which in turn kick the motor/generator to keep it running;
http://www.lutec.com.au/
The Lutec 1000 generator will produce up to 1000 watts of DC electricity twenty four hours a day, every day, which will be stored in a battery bank and then inverted to AC power and connected directly into the home or business.
The Lutec 1000 draws the power it requires to run itself from the same battery bank. The average house in Cairns, Queensland, uses only fourteen of the twenty four kilowatt hours able to be stored in twenty four hours by this method.
The batteries will last ten years. The generator is expected to come with a conditional ten-year warranty.
The magnets that are responsible for the generation have an effective life of one thousand three hundred years.
------------------------
And of course the Tilley device which appears to be a 'closed loop' system since it is claimed to produce the energy it needs to keep the motor/generator spinning;
http://www.keelynet.com/tilley/tilltrip.htm
------------------------
One other that comes to mind is the electronic version of Scott McKies PODMOD which you can read about at;
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/mckie.htm
...Resurrecting 'resonance' theory McKie is a promoter of one particular idea of Tesla's, the notion that the power in an electric circuit can be amplified by a phenomenon known as resonance. Broadly stated, in a resonant circuit a small flow of electrons can cause a larger amount of electrons to move. This phenomenon was first discovered by Tesla and by now is well understood.
...The time is probably near when these finer forces will be employed universally. Everybody knows that a note struck upon an instrument will produce sound in a correspondingly attuned instrument in its vicinity.
If connected with a tuning fork, it will produce a corresponding sound in the latter; and IF CONNECTED WITH A THOUSAND SUCH TUNING FORKS, IT WILL MAKE ALL THE THOUSAND SOUND, AND PRODUCE A NOISE FAR GREATER THAN THE ORIGINAL SOUND, WITHOUT THE LATTER BECOMING ANY WEAKER FOR IT.
Here, then, is the AUGMENTATION OR MULTIPLICATION OF POWER. If we had any means to TRANSFORM SOUND again into MECHANICAL MOTION, we would have a THOUSANDFOLD MULTIPLICATION OF MECHANICAL MOTION.
...The " '93 specs" consist of a device designed with two resonant tank circuits--so called because they are able to store an electrical charge-- operating alternately. The first circuit can be made to simultaneously charge the second and send electric current out for other uses. The circuits can then be switched so the second recharges the first while also sending current out for other uses.
McKie thinks that if properly devised, the two circuits will produce more power than the total amount of power it took to set them in motion. Going "over unity," this is called. He thinks, in fact, the power can be amplified many thousands of times and the device can be disconnected from the power source that started it and continue running. McKie thinks such a system could operate indefinitely.
-----------------------
So I think we should try to be clear on 'open vs closed loop' systems...
In one way, they are the same since NOTHING can be truly closed...ergo...black and white....
Yet the gray shades come into play when the open loop machine cannot power itself though appears to produce more than it uses, even if fed from an outside source....
Versus a self-contained unit which folds part of its output power BACK to keep itself running...like the Lutec and Tilley machines claim to do.
Which would you have more confidence in? Externally powered (open loop) OR standalone (closed loop)
For myself, my preference is a standalone machine but then I'm being a purist and some will say anal retentive.......bottomline is lower power bills due to higher efficiencies or no power bills due to direct free energy conversion.
--
Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com from an Art to a Science - order out of Chaos discussion archive - http://escribe.com/science/keelynet
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * Please help support KeelyNet with donations or purchases http://www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm http://www.keelynet.com/products.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Closed loop vs open loops for free energy 'conversion' (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Sunday, March 14, 2004 @ 13:54:11 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to see through most of the claims made by FE/OU developers. Any device with a purported energy storage device (battery) should be able to run without the device in the circuit. I'll give the inventors the ability to start their machine with a battery, but the true test comes when the starter source is disconnected. Forget all the fancy measurements that "prove" surplus energy is being generated, take off the jumper cables and see if the engine continues to run, that is in the only way to prove a true FE/OU device.
The COP (ratio of power out to power in) should also tell us if the device should immediately be self sustaining. First see what the conversion effectiveness (CE)of the regeneration mechanism purports to be, for a thermal device (heat engine)this may only be about 20-30 %, for an electrcal motor,generator,electronic circuit or transformer it should be in the range of 70% to 99%.
The COP neccessary for the device to close the loop and run on its own should be 1+1/CE. A thermal device would need a large COP in order to self sustain because of the inherent inefficency of a heat engine in converting heat into energy. A transformer or flux coupling device should need very little excess energy produced from an FE/OU process in order to run on its own. The host of Faraday disk devices, magnetic flux"amplifiers" all fall into this category, and self sustaining activity should be the easiest to achieve with these machines. Unfortunately, none have been observed demonstrating this behavior. Measurements have been taken, and various explanations proffered for these failures, but it just gets down to one fact, the inventors haven't hit the mark.
The fact that none of these reported FE/OU devices seems to be able to sustain themselves without some form of energetic input seems to show that no one has found the Holy Grail of FE/OU at the present time. This does not mean that it cannot be achieved, just don't waste time and effort going down paths that don't lead anywhere.
|
|
|
Re: Closed loop vs open loops for free energy 'conversion' (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, March 15, 2004 @ 04:06:15 GMT | | There's no need to close the loop; just run a 1kW heater from a small "transistor" battery. That would be convincing enough. |
|
|
Re: Closed loop vs open loops for free energy 'conversion' (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, March 15, 2004 @ 07:36:44 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) | As an added note, the one term that always complicates and muddels the energy measurements in a FE/OU device is a common Electrical Engineering measurement called a "power factor". when measuring output power always keep in mind:
Power=
Voltage(volts)XCurrent(amperes)XCosine(PF)
PF is the phase angle between the voltage and the current, and in a real circuit it is always some number other than zero. If is sometimes called power factor. In a resonant circuit both the voltage and the current can reach high values, but at the expense of the power factor. The phase angle between the two will inevitably be about 90%. This explains a lot of what we are observing in FE/OU devices that seem to produce more power that what is input . Forgot to factor in that Cosine! |
|
|
Re: Closed loop vs open loops for free energy 'conversion' (Score: 1)
by Archer on Monday, March 15, 2004 @ 08:07:09 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Bonjour, Mr. Decker et al.:
Compliments on some of the more relevant and cogent discussion to be posted in this forum lately. I'd just like to point out that many of the issues being discussed here concerning a "closed loop" [self-sustaining] OU system have been rigorously addressed in our recently-posted Over-Unity webpage (at www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html). We feel this detailed engineering design study clearly discloses a viable "new" approach to wresting self-sustaining or 'formal' OU output from a Faraday disk device (as 'ElectroDynaCat' suggests might be most feasible, in his comments), despite the "host" of questionable prior art and failed attempts.
The design we propose (with perhaps too "full and fair disclosure") can be prototyped relatively inexpensively and the simple specific back-torque reduction methodology first suggested by Nikola Tesla – and inadequately and/or improperly investigated since – can be readily verified (or not) experimentally. We feel that ample evidence is developed and presented to merit renewed investigation by the great number of small independent shops and labs capable of the undertaking. We would encourage your review of our new webpage on this topic, and any comments or questions about it that you might care to share with us.
Best regards,
Mark Tomion
Pres.
Archer Enterprises |
|
|
|
|
