Open Source Free Energy GoFundMe - Spencer Frame

[LogicDude]

At 6:23 he says, "We increased the kinetic energy of the compass needle" after he gets current flowing in a wire and the compass needle deflects to a new position.

No, it's not kinetic energy at all.  It's potential energy.

And to be even more specific, the compass needle's response to the external magnetic field is to "fall" into a new lowest state of magnetic potential energy, a.k.a. MPE.  That's what the iron filings are doing also.  They are "falling" into their lowest state of MPE.

He also repeatedly makes reference to an "electromagnetic field" when it's a magnetic field.

For every clip Spencer makes you could write up between a dozen and two dozen mistakes or more.  Sometimes they are really glaring and you say to yourself, "It's IMPOSSIBLE that this guy is an electrical engineer."

LogicDude

[jheissjr]

"I went out and got an engineering degree" like a person goes out to get groceries is an odd way to say you have a degree.

[Electrodynamic]

At 6:23 he says, "We increased the kinetic energy of the compass needle" after he gets current flowing in a wire and the compass needle deflects to a new position.

No, it's not kinetic energy at all.  It's potential energy.

And to be even more specific, the compass needle's response to the external magnetic field is to "fall" into a new lowest state of magnetic potential energy, a.k.a. MPE.  That's what the iron filings are doing also.  They are "falling" into their lowest state of MPE.

He also repeatedly makes reference to an "electromagnetic field" when it's a magnetic field.

For every clip Spencer makes you could write up between a dozen and two dozen mistakes or more.  Sometimes they are really glaring and you say to yourself, "It's IMPOSSIBLE that this guy is an electrical engineer."

LogicDude

You seem to have made a few mistakes as well.

At 6:23 he says, "We increased the kinetic energy of the compass needle" after he gets current flowing in a wire and the compass needle deflects to a new position.

While the compass needle is deflecting to a new position the motion of the needle is considered kinetic energy.

He also repeatedly makes reference to an "electromagnetic field" when it's a magnetic field.

It's debatable and in physics it is considered an electromagnetic field. A permanent magnets magnetic field is created by the motion of electric charge, including the spins/orbits of electrons within the magnet. Ergo all magnetic fields are considered Electro-Magnetic in nature. We cannot have a magnetic field without an electric field moving first.

In fact some in physics go so far as to claim the magnetic field is imaginary. There are stationary electric fields and motional electric fields aka a magnetic field. The internal motional electric field is simply displaced into the surrounding space giving the false appearance of a new kind of field we called magnetism by mistake. Similar to the mistake of thinking positive charges or Protons are flowing in solid conductors which is not true. Only the free or conduction electrons can move in solid conductors.

[LogicDude]

You seem to have made a few mistakes as well.

Nope, I looked at the clip a few times.  He is clearly making reference to the new static position of the compass needle.  He seems to think it is "energized with kinetic energy" in that position because of the external magnetic field.

The real point is that Spencer tries to position himself as a knowledgeable electronics experimenter and his language consistently reveals the truth and shows that he does not know what he is doing.  The ironic thing is that the enthusiasts in his comment section actually do believe that he is an electronics expert because they don't know any better themselves.  They praise him for his amazing work on his amazing project.

You can draw some parallels with our host Dave doing a great job of deconstructing the ridiculous Solar Roadways project.  And Thunderf00t also did a great job of ripping them apart.  I have great admiration for both of their contributions about that topic.  You will never see a Solar Roadways installation in your life.

And no, there is only a magnetic field outside the wire in Spencer's example based on DC current flow.  There is no wiggle-room for basic stuff like this.

For learning about real electronics there is a fantastic YouTube channel called "lasseverin1."  To follow his explanations it does require that you have knowledge of calculus.  This gentleman is truly truly great.

Here he explains what the magnetic field is for a wire with DC current flowing through it.  He explains what the magnetic field is both inside the wire and outside the wire.

Sorry, I don't know how to embed a playable YouTube clip in the posting.

Applications of Ampere's Law (part I)
https://youtu.be/UUfZR33FblY

Applications of Ampere's Law (part II)
https://youtu.be/ef9R3imCesY

[SteveThackery]

I think we can safely say that a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field are referring to the same phenomenon. The term "electromagnetic field" seems to be used as an informal way of stating that it is generated by an electromagnet, rather than a piece of magnetic material.

[LogicDude]

I am just going to pull up some of my shadow-banned comments on Spencer's clips to give some flavor.  This shows a discussion between myself and Spencer and it's from when I first started talking with him five months ago.

From this discussion I quickly realized that Spencer had no clue.  Spencer's first stab at "proof of over unity" as shown in the discussion below is an amateur farce.  It's definitive proof that this whole project had no credibility from the start because Spencer had no credibility.  Buyer beware.

Me:  I am going to repeat the questions to you.  How do you actually make some meaningful measurements to show something?  What measurements do you make?  There are a thousand people building pulse motors on YouTube, and not one of them makes any real measurements.  You are stating you are serious about what you are doing.  So, can you please answer the questions?

Spencer:  I explained there will be data logger that shows rpm and voltage of the battery banks. When the rpm and voltages don't change for 24 hours of run time that is definitive proof of over unity.

Me:  Sorry, but that is not a valid answer.  Most types of batteries show a nearly constant voltage under load for 90% or more of their voltage vs. time curve while they are discharging.  So, not seeing a change in voltage means nothing, it is invalid data and you can't draw any conclusions when you do that.  On top of that, just changes in the ambient temperature can show slight changes in the battery output voltage.  On top of that, when a battery heats up a bit while it is driving a load, that can also show a slight increase in the battery output voltage.  So, you are going to have to develop a more robust means of testing and making your measurements.  Do you have any ideas?

Spencer:  yes you can bro... there is a time where its becomes valid. I love people telling why stuff is impossible

Another commenter:  Every thing is in the data, or lack there of, the fact you do not even know what data is useful proves you child are outside of your depth

Me:  You said, "when the rpm and voltages don't change for 24 hours of run time that is definitive proof of over unity."  I am going to assume you will be swapping the run battery and the charging battery every three minutes like you have done before.  And we know that the voltage on a lead-acid battery will barely change over 90% or more of its discharge cycle.  Also, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average power consumption of the motor with a single drive coil will be 20 watts and you will have a set of standard car batteries for the run battery and the charge battery (that swap back and forth).

So, a typical 12-volt car battery is 60 amp-hours which is about 2.6 megajoules of energy.  So your total battery energy is 5.2 megajoules.  A power consumption of 20 watts over 24 hours gives you 1.73 megajoules of energy.  So the two batteries can in theory power the motor for about three days.  Let's derate that and say the two batteries could power the pulse motor for about 2 1/2 days without any noticeable change in RPM.  So, my conclusion is that the motor would have to run a full 10 days to give you a possible proof of over unity.

The key to all of this is 1) know how much energy is in the two lead-acid batteries and 2) know the average power consumption of the motor.   What do you think?

Spencer:  Agreed. If I put the shaft under load then the work done will increase the process substantially / decrease the time needed to prove.

But ya if we get this thing running for weeks and do a bunch of work then its looking definitive.

Ideally it would be cool to pump water with the output to a certain height and once the amount of potential energy in the water being lifted was equal to the total system chemical energy at the start... well that would also be proof.

Me:  You have to be careful about putting the shaft under load because it is a pulse motor and not a conventional motor.  When you put the shaft under load then the RPM will go down.  That means you will have fewer pulses per second and each pulse will consume more energy.  So, more pulses per second at lower energy per pulse vs. less pulses per second at higher energy per pulse.  That could be a zero-sum game.  There is a distinct possibility that when you put the shaft under load the average power consumption of the pulse motor will go down.  The only way to know for sure is to measure the average power consumption of the motor without a load and with a load.

Spencer:  <no response>

[jheissjr]

Is this the same electromagnetic field around the wire?

[LogicDude]

Is this the same electromagnetic field around the wire?

No, that's a diagram showing an electromagnetic wave propagating through a medium.

[Electrodynamic]

I think we can safely say that a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field are referring to the same phenomenon. The term "electromagnetic field" seems to be used as an informal way of stating that it is generated by an electromagnet, rather than a piece of magnetic material.

It's an interesting subject with many different perspectives.

A solenoid coil moves free electrons in a circle around the core to produce a magnetic field. A permanent magnet does the same thing where the electron spin/orbits move in circular paths in the atom to produce a magnetic field. In theory a super conductor moving the free electrons in a loop with zero resistance is a permanent magnetic field source indistinguishable from a permanent magnet.

Which raises an interesting question, why do the electron spin/orbits in a permanent magnet experience little or no resistance?. For example, a permanent magnet can retain it's magnetic properties for centuries. Here it comes down to the scale on which the electron motion occurs. In an atom the electron spin/orbit has little or no resistance because there is nothing to get in it's way. What we call material is supposedly only 1% material and 99% space occupied by electric and magnetic fields. The ratio of the space between particles in an atom is 1000x greater than the space between the planets in our solar system. Weird that what many call material has so little of it.

So we need to be aware of the difference between the average persons warped macro view of things versus what we know of particle physics.

[Electrodynamic]

Logicdude

From this discussion I quickly realized that Spencer had no clue.  Spencer's first stab at "proof of over unity" as shown in the discussion below is an amateur farce.  It's definitive proof that this whole project had no credibility from the start because Spencer had no credibility.  Buyer beware.

I would tend to agree somewhat however the process of invention is an imperfect science.

For example, I invented a passive device to remove 99% of the vertical ball bearing load in a rotating device. It's very simple and we just place strong neodymium magnets above both ends of a rotating metal load shaft to produce an upward force equal to the "weight" of the shaft on the ball bearings. As such the ball bearings only load is to constrain any shaft motion on an axis not carry the supposed weight. In one test a 100lb rotor shaft could spin 12hrs with only a small spin by hand. It's so simple even a child could understand it and yet billions of people didn't, that's how invention works.

My point is most people are not inventors and have no idea how to improve something. They are very good at following others and repeating what they have done but the process of invention seems to eludes them. So I applaud anyone trying to improve anything and it's the intent that matters imo.

[LogicDude]

Just one more shadow-banned cameo with me engaging with Spencer on one of his YouTube clips for people to contemplate:

Me:  i(t) = 1/L integral v(t) dt

How many enthusiasts that are also interested in electronics understand what that equation means with respect to this project?

Spencer:  Well Frank i know magnomotive force is the rate at which dielectric is produced or consumed. And vise versa for Volts or E.

Me:  Magnetomotive force (MMF) is the magnetic equivalent of electromotive force (EMF) in an electrical circuit, representing the driving force that produces magnetic flux in a magnetic circuit, such as in an electromagnet. It is calculated by multiplying the number of turns in a coil by the current flowing through it (MMF = NI) and is measured in ampere-turns (At). MMF is analogous to voltage (EMF) in an electric circuit, with magnetic flux being analogous to electric current, and magnetic reluctance being analogous to electrical resistance.

When you say, "Magnetomotive force is the rate at which dielectric is produced or consumed" that doesn't make a stitch of sense to me.  It has nothing to do with the equation I posted.  Spencer, I am not getting any electrical engineering vibes from you.  And you don't have an engineering ring.  So what's up with that?

Spencer:  <no response>

[Analog Kid]

Spencer:  Well Frank i know magnomotive force is the rate at which dielectric is produced or consumed. And vise versa for Volts or E.

So is that response just total gobbledygook? Does any part of it make any sense?
(not an engineer here either)

[LogicDude]

An interesting little techie comment about my previous posting and relating it back to an EMF issue.

i(t) = 1/L integral v(t) dt

The above is the equation that defines the current rise in the drive coil in a pulse motor when the transistor or MOSFET switches ON for a certain amount of time  That's the energizing pulse from the run battery. So, in theory(?) we can simplify this equation and assume v(t) is a constant at battery voltage Vbatt.

i(t) = 1/L integral Vbatt dt

Note that normally, this energizing pulse is much shorter than the L/R time constant of the drive coil and as a result the coil current will rise almost linearly with the following simplified formula:

i(t) = Vbatt/L*t

HOWEVER, the rotor magnets are also passing by the drive coil and they are inducing EMF vemf(t) in the coil.

Therefore the real v(t) in the first formula is this: [ Vbatt + vemf(t) ]

So, what does this mean?  It means the drive coil is going to have two sources of voltage that induce current to flow in the coil, the battery voltage added to the EMF voltage.  The problem is that you can't directly see the EMF inside the coil.  Normally the induced EMF from the rotor magnet flybys will be opposite in polarity to the battery voltage.

What you can do however, is simply run the rotor without the battery connected and look at the EMF induced in the drive coil on your scope.  Then at least you can add the two voltage sources together on paper by making a timing diagram.  This will give you a better insight and understanding about how the current rises in the drive coil.

Note that if you change the drive coil for a coil with many more turns, then the induced EMF from the magnets passing by on the rotor will be that much higher in voltage.  So the key is to look at the EMF induced in the drive coil at the normal operating RPM of the rotor.

So, that was super nerdy for any nerds out there.

LogicDude

[LogicDude]

Spencer:  Well Frank i know magnomotive force is the rate at which dielectric is produced or consumed. And vise versa for Volts or E.

So is that response just total gobbledygook? Does any part of it make any sense?
(not an engineer here either)

You got it right, total gobbledygook.  None of it makes sense.

My previous posting gives you a really "hardcore" explanation for the equation in question.  lol

[LogicDude]

Just a good old fashioned rant and I am probably done with this topic.

If I was building this amazing crowd-funded plexiglass monster pulse motor in pursuit of that elusive free energy, once the build was done, these are the FIRST things I would do:

• Put a current-sensing resistor on the drive coil and always watch that most important current waveform (If you are very smart in how you go about this, you can actually look at the full cycle: the energizing of the drive coil from the run battery bank and the discharge of the drive coil into the charging battery bank)
• Measure the inductance of the drive coil and hence get the L/R time constant for the drive coil
• Use my scope to do a critical analysis of the timing of the drive coil energizing pulse relative to the rotor magnet passes and tweak and play with the timing and adjust it to my satisfaction
• Measure the average power consumption of the motor from the run battery bank
• Measure the average power output of the motor into the charging battery bank

Spencer and his technical buddy are five months into this project and as far as I am aware they have done none of this.

And of course after this they are supposed to see if there is any free energy to be found.  Time will tell what they do to look for that.  The saga will continue on YouTube.  As you saw from one of my earlier postings Spencer's first thought on how to go about finding this proof of free energy was a farce.

All that they are doing is a "paint by numbers" pulse motor.  Change the drive coil for one with more turns and see what happens.  Add another battery in series to the run battery bank and see what happens.  And what are they looking to see?  Most likely the rotor RPM and the battery voltages.  That's almost useless data.  However, I give them credit because they state they want to get some sort of decent battery tester that can measure the state of charge for their batteries.

Spencer believes that upping the run battery voltage may be the "key" to getting free energy out of the setup.  If they never look at the current going through the drive coil there is the distinct possibility that the drive coil will remain permanently energized as the pulse motor runs.  That means that the drive coil will be pumping continuous DC current flow into the charging battery bank with a decaying current waveform and it gets "kicked back up" every time the MOSFETs switch ON.

LogicDude

[Analog Kid]

The only upside I can see in this is that we know, to a certainty, that they'll eventually crash and burn in their quest for free energy. No telling how long it'll take before they realize that, but it'll happen sooner or later.

The only real pity would be any suckers along the way who put money into this scheme. They will be innocent victims, sorta (sorta because the onus of doing due diligence is on the donor as well as the recipient).

[Haenk]

The only upside I can see in this is that we know, to a certainty, that they'll eventually crash and burn in their quest for free energy. No telling how long it'll take before they realize that, but it'll happen sooner or later.

Fanatism is immune to arguments and facts. Proven again and again and again.