Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Joe Cell Free Energy Device] What a country

Expand Messages
  • Sttoad
    ... As a licensed broadcast engineer I can share that it is really easy to patch around that box. Takes about 15 seconds to get the patch cord and plug it in.
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 29, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2/29/2012 4:02 PM, bob bell wrote:
      >
      > off subject but informative?
      > Poor old America
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZdbiSLnv4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2bc97b2RVAAAAAAAABw
      > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZdbiSLnv4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2bc97b2RVAAAAAAAABw>
      >
      As a licensed broadcast engineer I can share that it is really easy to
      patch around that box. Takes about 15 seconds to get the patch cord and
      plug it in.

      Dan
    • jgosscacc1
      Hello Joe, The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will not
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 10, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Joe,

        The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't compensate for the above action.

        Thanks,
        James Goss
      • maximumgravity1
        James, It simply will not work due to resistance. ...the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          James,

          "It simply will not work due to resistance."
          "...the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a generator"

          I am not sure this ALWAYS true. I am not sure if you have seen this patent before:
          5191258 Electric Current Generator Including Torque Reducing Counter Magnetic Field by James German.
          This patent is quite simplistic, and utilizes Lenz's Law in a very unique way. My simplified understanding of this is as the metal block rotates through the magnetic field, it increases the magnetic flux flowing between the magnets. As the block moves away the counter force through Lenz's Law pushes the block (as it is a counter force no matter what the charge/source) thereby increasing rotation and decreasing torque.

          BAsically, Lenz's Law says:
          An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux.

          It is this opposition in change in magnetic flux that I think can be harnessed in a unique way to provide motion to a prime mover.

          I am not sure if you have heard of Steve Ward (I believe he is related to James German (son in-law I believe)), he is pushing something he calls "Ward Force" as he believes he has countered Lenz's Law or proven it false...or something! I believe he just has a misunderstanding of the forces involved, especially in Lenz's Law - but that is for a different discussion. Anyway, he has several videos showing a similar device he built that actually increases speed and output the higher the electric load (older video http://energy-ingenuitycom.blogspot.com/2009/12/lit-demonstration.html). He has a new website (http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html) with some newer ideas about an oil filed rotating magnet which is interesting and builds on the premise of several of the ideas below.

          Just be forewarned...not everything he says is correct (IMO) and I think he has some interesting ideas he is playing with, although I think he has misunderstood some of what he is seeing, and therefore provides some odd explanations.

          There are several other patents out there that use a form of flux manipulation or flux gating where a magnetic field ALWAYS remains in tact, but the counter EMF can be strong enough to provide work as a field collapses and reroute the flux through paths of less resistance.

          Two more examples, the first also with videos.
          Thane Heins Canadian patent CA2594905 Bi-Torroid Transformer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRPCt1-WwQ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfwiXJ8apk)

          A similar concept is Dietmar Wehr's Y-Frame (About 5th abstract down - http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt3.html)

          In the end, I think the idea of a stationary magnetic field with a prime mover that DOES NOT induct the flux directly into a coil is where we might find some innovation. We haven't changed the primary concept of an induction motor in almost 200 years...it might be time to start thinking in a new direction.

          James, because of your amazing explanations, and very inspiring work with capacitors and leyden jars and high voltage static electricity, I thought you of all people might find this information useful - interesting at the least.

          --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "jgosscacc1" <jgosscacc@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hello Joe,
          >
          > The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't compensate for the above action.
          >
          > Thanks,
          > James Goss
          >
        • G C
          I think what this guy tries to tell us is that it is a magnetic generator , and the friction is reduced. This patent shows us a 2nd grade Perpetuum Mobile,
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I think what this guy tries to tell us is that it is a magnetic generator , and the friction is reduced. This patent shows us a 2nd grade Perpetuum Mobile, however, there are rumors that it has already been created , but again ... NOBODY saw it. It is like an AirBender ... everybody knows about it , but it doesn't exist :)
            "maximumgravity1", I would have tried this thing about 15 years ago when I had the idea. But the Math , as we know it , it doesn't add up. Do this experiments for me :

            Take a 4 Gallon bucket, and try to put 6 gallons of water in it ... or
            Take a 4 gallon bucket an try to fill it up to the brimm with just 2 gallons of water.

            When you'll be successfull with those ... let me know ... I will take it to TV as a miracle.

            :)

            John




            On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM, jgosscacc1 <jgosscacc@...> wrote:
             

            Hello Joe,

            The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't compensate for the above action.

            Thanks,
            James Goss


          • Bernie Heere
            I think that there s been few breakthroughs in this area because of the reluctance of the scientific community to recognize the fact that both Back EMF and
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I think that there's been few breakthroughs in this area because of the
              reluctance of the scientific community to recognize the fact that both Back
              EMF and inertia are actually Torsion field effects. Once this is understood
              than it's possible to incorporate and utilize these effects to greatly
              improve efficiency.

              The Joe cell is a good example of this. An ICE radiates frequencies related
              to the dimension of the moving parts of the engine. The cell picks up these
              frequencies, boosts them and feeds them back out of phase to boost engine
              performance. In effect cancelling out the inertia associated with the
              pistons in particular. Realizing that the travel velocity of a piston in one
              revolution goes from a relatively large positive number through zero then to
              a large negative number than back to zero it easy to see that inertia has a
              major effect on engine performance.

              The crank is similar in that it's a relatively large mass of iron and it
              takes a lot of power to change its inertia to accelerate to a higher RPM. So
              if that inertia can be cancelled out we can accelerate without wasting
              engine power. It's been said that the Joe cell can increase engine
              horsepower up to 15 times.

              The back EMF issue in an electric motor is about the fact that the Torsion
              field propagates a lot faster than the Magnetic field. In electricity all
              three fields are involved in the transfer of power, so a motor design that
              doesn't take all three into account will of course, be inefficient. And of
              course an electric motor has its own issues with inertia to overcome.

              We recently split of research into these concepts and took it to the new
              group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vibrational_combustion_technology/


              Because it's really a different approach to optimizing engine performance
              than the traditional Joe cell approach. We're exploring the idea of tuning a
              device to specific engine parameters in hopes of greatly improving
              efficiency.

              Bernie

              -----Original Message-----
              From: joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              maximumgravity1
              Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:00 AM
              To: joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Joe Cell Free Energy Device] Re: Electricity Multiplier machine

              James,

              "It simply will not work due to resistance."
              "...the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the
              generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being
              turned as a generator"

              I am not sure this ALWAYS true. I am not sure if you have seen this patent
              before:
              5191258 Electric Current Generator Including Torque Reducing Counter
              Magnetic Field by James German.
              This patent is quite simplistic, and utilizes Lenz's Law in a very unique
              way. My simplified understanding of this is as the metal block rotates
              through the magnetic field, it increases the magnetic flux flowing between
              the magnets. As the block moves away the counter force through Lenz's Law
              pushes the block (as it is a counter force no matter what the
              charge/source) thereby increasing rotation and decreasing torque.

              BAsically, Lenz's Law says:
              An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose
              magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux.

              It is this opposition in change in magnetic flux that I think can be
              harnessed in a unique way to provide motion to a prime mover.

              I am not sure if you have heard of Steve Ward (I believe he is related to
              James German (son in-law I believe)), he is pushing something he calls "Ward
              Force" as he believes he has countered Lenz's Law or proven it false...or
              something! I believe he just has a misunderstanding of the forces involved,
              especially in Lenz's Law - but that is for a different discussion. Anyway,
              he has several videos showing a similar device he built that actually
              increases speed and output the higher the electric load (older video
              http://energy-ingenuitycom.blogspot.com/2009/12/lit-demonstration.html). He
              has a new website (http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/index.html) with some
              newer ideas about an oil filed rotating magnet which is interesting and
              builds on the premise of several of the ideas below.

              Just be forewarned...not everything he says is correct (IMO) and I think he
              has some interesting ideas he is playing with, although I think he has
              misunderstood some of what he is seeing, and therefore provides some odd
              explanations.

              There are several other patents out there that use a form of flux
              manipulation or flux gating where a magnetic field ALWAYS remains in tact,
              but the counter EMF can be strong enough to provide work as a field
              collapses and reroute the flux through paths of less resistance.

              Two more examples, the first also with videos.
              Thane Heins Canadian patent CA2594905 Bi-Torroid Transformer
              (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRPCt1-WwQ ,
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KfwiXJ8apk)

              A similar concept is Dietmar Wehr's Y-Frame (About 5th abstract down -
              http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt3.html)

              In the end, I think the idea of a stationary magnetic field with a prime
              mover that DOES NOT induct the flux directly into a coil is where we might
              find some innovation. We haven't changed the primary concept of an
              induction motor in almost 200 years...it might be time to start thinking in
              a new direction.

              James, because of your amazing explanations, and very inspiring work with
              capacitors and leyden jars and high voltage static electricity, I thought
              you of all people might find this information useful - interesting at the
              least.

              --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "jgosscacc1" <jgosscacc@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Hello Joe,
              >
              > The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then
              drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will
              not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load
              current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the
              generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator
              tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a
              generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow
              down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which
              causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and
              so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't
              compensate for the above action.
              >
              > Thanks,
              > James Goss
              >



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links



              -----
              No virus found in this message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4863 - Release Date: 03/10/12
            • joe
              this energy multiplication system works,,, it does not work on electronics calculations it works on large speed differences between your input and your output
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                this energy multiplication system works,,,
                it does not work on electronics calculations
                it works on large speed differences
                between your input and your output motors
                this major multiplication of rpms is great enough
                to negate any loss due to friction losses
                because of the vast circumference difference
                between your input motor (extremely slow)
                and the output motor (extremely fast)
                ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                ok, lets just keep talking about how this wont work
                never really even trying to build it, (it is too far fetched to believe)
                and let this blessing to mankind be missed

                --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, G C <gcredit@...> wrote:
                >
                > I think what this guy tries to tell us is that it is a magnetic generator ,
                > and the friction is reduced. This patent shows us a 2nd grade Perpetuum
                > Mobile, however, there are rumors that it has already been created , but
                > again ... NOBODY saw it. It is like an AirBender ... everybody knows about
                > it , but it doesn't exist :)
                > "maximumgravity1", I would have tried this thing about 15 years ago when I
                > had the idea. But the Math , as we know it , it doesn't add up. Do this
                > experiments for me :
                >
                > Take a 4 Gallon bucket, and try to put 6 gallons of water in it ... or
                > Take a 4 gallon bucket an try to fill it up to the brimm with just 2
                > gallons of water.
                >
                > When you'll be successfull with those ... let me know ... I will take it to
                > TV as a miracle.
                >
                > :)
                >
                > John
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM, jgosscacc1 <jgosscacc@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > Hello Joe,
                > >
                > > The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then
                > > drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will
                > > not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load
                > > current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the
                > > generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator
                > > tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a
                > > generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow
                > > down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which
                > > causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and
                > > so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't
                > > compensate for the above action.
                > >
                > > Thanks,
                > > James Goss
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • joe
                this energy multiplication system works,,, it does not work on electronics calculations it works on large speed differences between your input and your output
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  this energy multiplication system works,,,
                  it does not work on electronics calculations
                  it works on large speed differences
                  between your input and your output motors
                  this major multiplication of rpms is great enough
                  to negate any loss due to friction losses
                  because of the vast circumference difference
                  between your input motor (extremely slow)
                  and the output motor (extremely fast)
                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  ok, lets just keep talking about how this wont work
                  never really even trying to build it, (it is too far fetched to believe)
                  and let this blessing to mankind be missed

                  --- In joecellfreeenergydevice@yahoogroups.com, "jgosscacc1" <jgosscacc@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello Joe,
                  >
                  > The idea of an electric motor turning a generator, whose output then drives the motor, has been around for a 100 years or more. It simply will not work due to resistance. When the generator starts providing a load current, which in this case is the current to operate the motor, the generator requires more power to rotate its armature because the generator tries to motor in the opposite direction from which it is being turned as a generator. This increased mechanical load causes the drive motor to slow down. With the generator now turning slower it produces less voltage which causes the motor to slow down, which then causes less generated voltage and so on. Everything comes to a halt. The regulator in your diagram can't compensate for the above action.
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  > James Goss
                  >
                • jgosscacc1
                  Hello Joe, Joe, when using a standard electric motor and generator like you re proposing, the generator will be in a constant brawl with the motor. As an
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 11, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Joe,

                    Joe, when using a standard electric motor and generator like you're proposing, the generator will be in a constant brawl with the motor. As an example: If the generator requires 1 hp to rotate its armature at a certain rpm level for a given load, the drive motor must consume approximately 1.25 hp in order to supply the 1 hp to the generator. Most normal electric motors and generators are 80 percent or less efficient.

                    Pulley ratios can't amplify electrical power (wattage). It can be compared to a transformer, no matter what the turns ratio is, a transformer can't amplify wattage. Wattage required to operate the generator is reflected back to the drive motor.

                    I've built basically this same arrangement you're describing. Years ago with each new group of electrical students, there was normally one or two that came up with an idea for this type system. We built a system to demonstrate why it wouldn't function as they thought. Using various motors and pulley ratios, it simply did not function.

                    Here's something kind of related. Just the other day I was listening to a radio talk show concerning energy use. The host said he could not understand why everyone did not drive with their vehicle lights on at all times of the day for safety reasons. He then said it would not cost one cent more to have a vehicle's lights on while driving than it would if they were not on. I almost ran off the road when he said that.

                    Thanks,
                    James Goss
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.