Use for the Tesla Switch

[chasson321]

Bedini's Battery-Popper

last edit.....

[Aaron]

using the potential without flatlining it

When I had some caps acting like some kind of electret...they held at several
voltages and after shorting them, they'd be right back up...a few were up to
close to 10 volts, they would only go back to normal after I was pretty
rough with them.

When I connected an LED or whatever to them, it would never light it up
or do any work and would flat line the voltage immediately.

And the only way I could steal that potential was to charge another cap
which in return could light an led, etc...
that way the potential didn't go flat upon connection.

I think Imhotep found the same thing.

On a different subject, nobody is discussing what Peter mentioned, which
is what John mentioned that Peter mentioned. That really surprises me.

[nvisser]

Gyula,

Clearly, the article says that Baldinelli "holds a patent on the device". It also says that he was "attempting to sell the invention" to Ford or Raytheon. The latter is a major US Defense contractor, and since there is little else to find in the public domain on this subject, we can only guess what may have happened.

Since it is nearly impossible to raise money for an invention without patents, and since he apparently raised about $250k, it is within reason to believe that a patent DID issue at some point. If that is the case, then it is also probable that "something" happened later that made this patent impossible to locate today.
The article is loaded with anecdotal inferences, many of which become clearer the more often you read the article. For instance, Galluccio was Baldinelli's attorney, as listed on the Door Knob Alarm patents, so his statement concerning a patent on this device should be considered an "informed" statement, as he may also have been involved.

If a patent did issue on this invention, neither John nor I have seen it.

Peter

Aaron
Is this the post that you are talking about.
Peter mentioned that it is impossible to locate this patent

[blackchisel97]

On a different subject, nobody is discussing what Peter mentioned, which
is what John mentioned that Peter mentioned. That really surprises me.

Aaron, which post are you referring to?

Vtech

[nvisser]

I believe he talks about this
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/baldinelli_article.pdf

[StevanC]

I've heard and read (on your pages) these quotes many times. Nobody has ever tried to explain what they mean. I do not pretend to be bright enough to know what they mean, but I'll have a go at it just for the sake of discussion.

“...the missing concept of "open-paths" (the dual of "closed-paths") was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously — following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum point, the 'ground'). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix... which created 'lamellar' currents...”

Closed paths: If you tie everything to ground...that is where the current will go...straight to the ground, i.e. no circulation, no sheathing of current, cuts the heavyside current to none (or a bare minimum).

Open paths: No "ground". Every potential difference can have a current flowing from it. If the potential differences are evened out, these currents stop, i.e. no potential difference. So, you keep moving the potential in the system and just before the current can stop, you move it again with switching so, it keeps moving.

The Tesla switch has no earth ground, but it does have low and high points of potential. I believe, based on your previous hand drawn graph of the potentials, that just as the potential reaches a maximum, we need to switch, but this is well before the ions have a chance to move, i.e. slow moving beasts that they are, therefore, I am in a quandary as to how the switch can be that fast, but yet that slow except to include dead time. During the dead time, there is nothing flowing, at least not conventional current.

I do not know what "second rectangular transformation matrix" means, except to say that currents can continue to flow in the open paths with potential differences that are NOT tied to the lowest potental while others have terminated at the lowest potential point in the system.

It's all I have for now and not very revealing. Just stating the obvious, hoping that JB will take pity on my ignorance and elaborate on those quotes

Leroy

Leroy,
Marine officer guide says:
"If in doubt, ponder!"

@Mr. JB
1. In "currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes"
Are we considering re-using of left over potentials like (sort of) we do when we connect the stator in series to the rotor on a car cranking e-motor?
It uses same current in both the (commutated) rotor and in the electromagnetic stator?
2. Or are we talking about transverse potential shifting from one + to GND branch to a parallel one?
3. Or this two together?
4. Or we take into account something else?

Stevan C.

[hherby]

Measuring points

Matthew, "I'm Not yelling Here"
Look it is real simple if two batteries go into series minus the junction drop most of the heat will be in the transistor. This circuit works like a current charge pump. This is all about switching and how the switch works. The Tesla Switch is nothing more then a dual charger of which you can take energy from. You all must understand I do not like to use the term current because this is just the dissipation of the potential in the system which is the voltage. You want to use the least amount of current to charge the batteries, the batteries understand what the signal is since your scope can not see it. What you will notice is a sharp funny looking square wave, not what I have seen so far, I will try to take pictures for you all. The minimum scope must be at least 100Mhz to see anything. I was showing Peter yesterday when you get it switching right you will see the scope go negative 1 1/2 times the input, This would give you a COP of 2 anymore then this, John would not be around to talk about anything. I will try to draw it for you. The 50% duty cycle will do this, and you can run this down to 10% if you want. Try just building this simple at first so you can see what is going on. Timing is not the key the switch is and the device used. Right Leroy Good Job.
JB

JB,
Can you clarify where you had the scope probes connected when you saw this wave form?

Thanks
Alex

[Tehnoman]

Tehnoman,
This has all been tried before, it's not part of the program. Capacitors do not react like batteries, and the group is going to waste time on this experiment. It's a four battery system so stick with four batteries until the switching works.
[..]

Well, that is a pity. My present goal is to find the most basic experiment, that would prove something to be wrong with conventional science.

Until now, I had two suspects.
1) Tesla switch with capacitors in batteries place with quite fast switching.
2) K.Meyl ball setup, with quite high frequency current.

I am reluctant to use chemical batteries, because then chemical effects must be considered, which could lead even to quantum physics. Quite impossible to compare with conventional science predictions.

Anyways, good luck to you all.

[ldissing]

Batteries

I can seem to get the batteries to charge sometimes, but eventually, the lower batteries (the ones on the low side of the series switch) eventually start losing voltage (even after rising for quite a while). The upper ones, though, seem to keep fully charged at all times. Is a normal behavior? I'm thinking I should switch those batteries around and see what happens to them, will they fully charge...? I'm running at 2Hz, with a < 50% duty cycle.

@Matt,

I unhooked one side for a brief time, and the batteries do charge, and it doesn't take a really long time they start taking the charge pretty much immediately. They don't just run up to 14.5 volts though, they increase slowly. I'm using #47 bulbs at 150ma.

@JB,

Read both the patents surrounding charging batteries and I think I understand what you are doing with the solar charger and incorporation of the TS in there too. Some interesting traces on the underside of that board, no?

I bought 3 galvanometers (military), but the guy sent me 1 galvanometer and two kilowatt meters 0-60. It says they are supposed to have some external converter but I don't know what that is and can't find this meter (I can find it, but not how to use it) on the web anywhere. I hooked 1 up to one side of the switch (negative side), and it pegs the meter (over 60 on the meter) when the switch occurs, so I'm supposing that the external converter has to do with changing voltage/current to be in some particular range. I just thought that was an interesting reading. The KW meter has a coiled wire from the positive to negative terminal...did not remove it, as I assume it is supposed to be there in case the current is too high. Any ideas on this one? It is a AED3-30029. Don't know much about the galvanometer either, or if it is useful at all with these switches. I know what it is for, but don't even know how to hook them up PN 726667-2. Any input would be appreciated by anybody.

Thank you JB for your work, your patents are almost too clear. Aren't they supposed to be more vague? Perhaps there are some undisclosed pieces in there, but enough build something worthwhile.

Leroy

[Mark]

Just thought I'd chime in hear with what I'm doing, I'm not as high tech as most of you.

I'm running the 3 battery TS. But my load is a 3-pole monopole, running at 10.3 volts and around 100ma. I'm running it with a half bipolar switch and charging another battery with the output. The output is around 18ma.

The 2 charging batteries are gaining more than the 24v bank is losing.

Experiment is at my house up north and had to come back to city home until Friday when I will resume testing. Will let you know if anything significant is found.

Mark

[Plazma]

The &quot;Switching&quot; . . .

Hi Leroy,

Having bounced back and forth on the 2-switch, 4-switch, 6-switch, a dollar issue (and getting nowhere) . . . I'm back to a 2-switch configuration if for no other reason than to try to eliminate parts and get better consistency with what I have. Some of the "parts" that really concern me are the small, 1.0 or 2.2 uF caps in parallel with 1N4001 diodes to the base of the trannies that some of us are using. Here's my concern:

I have a decent LRC meter - and, after a lot of measuring, I have pretty lousy caps, especially the electrolytics. The specs say 20% (should say +/- 30%). Here I am thinking I'm putting in precise, sharp pulses properly gated and timed into the optos and what the base of the tranny is seeing is . . . ?! What is really poor is I had sorted through and matched some up early on but somehow they got mixed - so, back to sorting and matching caps.

Maybe I'm over-reacting about how critical this cap might be - but I have not seen much on the forum about people trying to characterize what goes on between the opto, the base of the tranny, and the waveform between the emitter and collector. I've been assuming I have been getting a nice, clean switching action - now I'm not so sure - so, another witch hunt.

Guess this one lines up with sorting other parts such as diodes trying to get uniform Vfwd's, and so forth.

I wonder how many others on the forum (like me) are getting bitten by either bad components or gross variances that are throwing them out of the window of opportunity?

Yes, I agree the tranny when it goes negative is the magic and balances the impedance(s). Good post -

Best,

Plazma

@JB,

Are you still saying that we do NOT need 6 devices for the switching? In the drawing that you made, you indicated only two devices would be needed for switching along with some diodes...are you still saying that this will work?

I'm trying to get my head around the negative part of the curve you hand drew (that goes 1 1/2 time negative vs. positive), and I know it involves the transistors. My mind is playing around with some switching scenarios, because just all on and all off doesn't fit, or everybody would have this working the way you are, the circuit is not that complicated.

That middle transistor/SCR needs to go negative for the impedance to match and if it were to go negative, then the positive of the battery above that transistor would effectively be at 36V (1 1/2 times 24V) for a short time until the diodes switch fully on and the transistor shuts fully off.

Impedance...I still think that is the issue again and no one knows, except you, Peter, and one or two other folks, how to match the impedance between the two sides, but one day 30 - 100 years from now, someone will figure it out again.

Frustrated as always but unwilling to let it go,

Leroy

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

I'm back to a 2-switch configuration if for no other reason than to try to eliminate parts and get better consistency with what I have.

Best,

Plazma

Plazma, can you post your schematic for this setup. You should be able to scope your base to see what kind triggering is happening.

Thanks

Bit's

[John_Bedini]

Tesla Switch

Ok,
I'm going back all over what we discussed here, I will start at ground zero if I must do that. It should be quite easy to make the simple circuits work.
Aaron is correct that what Peter and I discussed has been ignored. I also found that what Bill and Ray handed me as a diagram does not work, something is missing from the switch. Where did I get that wave, across the switching transistors in the four battery Tesla switch.

"Ronald Brandt did not invent the switch as he just was trying to figure out what the circuit was that was powering his electric car and why it kept blowing up"
.
The key factor may be the driver transformers!!!!!!!!! in the original circuit.

Baldinelli is the guy Aaron is talking about, this is the key to the success of the system. In the statements by Gabriel Kron, it is said what to change, Leroy pointed this out in a early post here. The currents can be very confusing as they take place in semiconductors.

Kron calls them
'lamellar' currents, A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths. And, noting a type of armor composed of small plates or lames laced together. Can be Interpreted as, small branch currents combining to form one big current, any semiconductor works this way, even different types of rocks.

“When only positive and negative real numbers exist, it is customary to replace a positive resistance by an inductance and a negative resistance by a capacitor
This is a sneaky statement but correct.
Looking at this statement, if collecting negative energy we use the capacitor, example, SG circuit.

The battery acts just like a capacitor, resistor, inductor. what is in the SG circuit that uses the positive, the coil. The semiconductor runs on 'lamellar' currents, how else could it move electrons, but through holes, which are branches or small pipes.[/SIZE]

John B

[Plazma]

Scanner but no Software . . .

Hi Bits,

I'm re-building JB's 4Bat, 2-Tranny, 8-diode concept drawing that he posted. Until I get the tools purchased and set up, I am very limited at present in posting graphical content - very frustrating. Those tools, and my crippled TSw are works in progress - as am I in more ways than I can count . . .

Yes, I've scoped the base(s) - looked sloppy - that's what prompted my previous post plus I noticed leakage(s) on some of the caps I tested. Any suggestions on caps appreciated. Maybe I was getting some spikes that hurt the caps? Not sure . . . actually, not sure about much of anything.

Best,

Plazma

PS - Fighting back from a near-death experience is way better than the alternative, TSw that works or not.

Plazma, can you post your schematic for this setup. You should be able to scope your base to see what kind triggering is happening.

Thanks

Bit's

[blackchisel97]

base capacitor

Some of the "parts" that really concern me are the small, 1.0 or 2.2 uF caps in parallel with 1N4001 diodes to the base of the trannies that some of us are using. Here's my concern:

I have a decent LRC meter - and, after a lot of measuring, I have pretty lousy caps, especially the electrolytics. The specs say 20% (should say +/- 30%). Here I am thinking I'm putting in precise, sharp pulses properly gated and timed into the optos and what the base of the tranny is seeing is . . . ?! What is really poor is I had sorted through and matched some up early on but somehow they got mixed - so, back to sorting and matching caps.

Maybe I'm over-reacting about how critical this cap might be - but I have not seen much on the forum about people trying to characterize what goes on between the opto, the base of the tranny, and the waveform between the emitter and collector. I've been assuming I have been getting a nice, clean switching action - now I'm not so sure - so, another witch hunt.

Guess this one lines up with sorting other parts such as diodes trying to get uniform Vfwd's, and so forth.

I wonder how many others on the forum (like me) are getting bitten by either bad components or gross variances that are throwing them out of the window of opportunity?

Yes, I agree the tranny when it goes negative is the magic and balances the impedance(s). Good post -

Best,

Plazma

Hi Plazma,
Your post wasn't addressed to me but I hope you don't mind my 2 cents
It's my understanding that the role of small capacitor paralleled with diode is to eliminate noise and make sure that impulse comes clear to the base of tranny. I would use 1uF monolith capacitor instead of electrolytic. From what I remember, electrolytic capacitors can have tolerance much higher than that. Even +50% wasn't something unusual. Rarely on the negative side, like -10% but often alot on the positive. I don't think this particular capacitance is very critical. If you use 1u, regardless of its tolerance you should be fine but what's important is the quality of capacitor. I'd stay with either monolith or tantalum for that purpose. Just MO.


Vtech