Use for the Tesla Switch

[lamare]

* is capturing the spike in a battery more efficient than capturing them in a capacitor?

Yesterday, I did some interesting calculations, after reading this article:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...inductors.html

Also see: Capacitors - Multiple Capacitors

So, the energy contained in two capacitors switched in series vs. parallel is the same, given a certain charge VOLTAGE:

Parrallel: Vp = V0, Cp = 2C:
Ep = 1/2 * Cp * Vp = 1/2 * 2C * V0 = C * V0

Series: Vs = 2 V0, Cs = 1/2 C:
Es = 1/2 * Cs * Vs = 1/2 * 1/4 C * 2 V0 = C * V0

We still have the same energy. Ok, so far, so good.


Now let's look at the CHARGE Q:

Parrallel: Vp = V0, Cp = 2C:
Qp = Cp * Vp = V0 * 2C = 2 C V0

Series: Vs = 2 V0, Cp = 1/2 C:
Qs = Cs * Vs = 2 V0 * 1/2 C = C V0

Yikes!
HALF THE CHARGE IS LOST!
Gone up into thin air!

This can probably be explained by that the charge on the negative plate of the top capacitor and that on the postive plate on the lower capacitor cancel each other out.

Now this is very interesting, if you want to charge capacitors from a current source (such as an inductor.... ):

If you put a certain charge Q (fixed current) into two capacitors switched in series vs. parallel, you get:

Parrallel: Qp = Q, Cp = 2C:
Vp = Qp / Cp = Q / 2C = 1/2 Q/C

Series: Qs = Q, Cs = 1/2C:
Vs = Qs / Cs = Q / (1/2 C) = 2 Q/C

In other words: you get 4 times as much energy for the same amount of charge fed into two capacitors if you charge them in series rather than in parallel!!!



So, if radiant spikes are to be considered as "current sources", which I think they do, it would be a good idea to capture these spikes using capacitors in series, rather than using single capacitors or caps switched in parallel.....


Note: if you take 4 caps in series and charge them from a current source, you'll even get 16 times as much energy for the same charge buck.....

[nilrehob]

Yesterday, I did some interesting calculations, after reading this article:

Yes, it's an interesting article.

But

I don't think Your calculations are correct as E=1/2 CV^2, You have to square the voltage on the capacitor.

So

Parrallel: Vp = V0, Cp = 2C:
Ep = 1/2 * Cp * Vp^2 = 1/2 * 2C * V0^2 = C * V0^2

Series: Vs = 2 V0, Cs = 1/2 C:
Es = 1/2 * Cs * Vs^2 = 1/2 * 1/2 C * (2 V0)^2 = C * V0^2

Ep is still eq to Es

I guess You have to adjust the other calculations in the same manner?
It might give different results?

[lamare]

I don't think Your calculations are correct as E=1/2 CV^2, You have to square the voltage on the capacitor.

You're right, what I wrote on E is rubbish.
I must have mixed up some of my notes while I types this.

But the point is: if you charge two caps to a certain voltage, you have the same energy, wether or not you switch them in series or in parallel.

However, what I wrote about the charge Q is correct, as far as I can tell, and *that* is what really matters.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also see this article:
http://www.linear.com/pc/downloadDoc...14,P1258,D4816

[Matthew Jones]

Matt, I have more questions on Your new motor, but maybe the motor deserves a thread of its own?

As soon the latest version is built, and tested, I'll finish my write up on it, and publish it.
I't just takes time to do load tests and stuff.

I don't consider it a Tesla switch. And the only reason I brought it up was because you were doing the exact same thing. Its a neat little thing, that tought me alot.

The only thing I really want to do with it is figure out how to keep the disharged energy (Neg. Energy) intact. Not let it convert. Maybe format a battery with it from scratch.

If you got any question feel free to PM me. I got no problems sharing.

Oh ya I'm just giving you hard time about the debating and stuff.

Cheers
Matt

[nilrehob]

If you got any question feel free to PM me. I got no problems sharing.

Thanks, and I will.

Oh ya I'm just giving you hard time about the debating and stuff.

I know, and I enjoy it

[nilrehob]

However, what I wrote about the charge Q is correct, as far as I can tell, and *that* is what really matters.

I'll look into it later today.

[nilrehob]

However, what I wrote about the charge Q is correct, as far as I can tell, and *that* is what really matters.

I get the same theoretical result, I have to test this in practice!

Also see this article:
http://www.linear.com/pc/downloadDoc...14,P1258,D4816

Interesting, the diodes and the caps looks like one of my setups, but the article made me see it from yet another angle. Cool!

Some days ago I said to myself: "don't spend so much time on this free energy nonsense..."
But now it's: "just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in..."

[nilrehob]

I did four runs with my latest hybrid motor and estimated the currency from the first battery (with a diode so the cap in parallel takes the charge and not the bat itself).

The four runs with second battery replaced by:
1: 2 caps i parallel -> 20mA
2: 2 caps in series -> 17.5mA
3: 1 cap -> 17.5mA
4: 2 caps in ser/par with 3 diodes -> 15mA

I must state that my setup is not that stable, my coils can easily change position, but I find this ser/par with 3 diodes rather interesting!

Let's expand this and test with more caps and diodes, shall we?
Each added cap requires 3 diodes, I'll check what I have in stock!

Has anyone else tried this trick?

[lamare]

Some days ago I said to myself: "don't spend so much time on this free energy nonsense..."
But now it's: "just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in..."

Everyone that knows a bit about Electrical Engineering is skeptical in the beginning, including me. Until I saw the documentaries by Thom Bearden and read some papers by him. That's someone that knows what he's talking about and I'm sure he's absolutely right. This is his latest paper AFAIK:

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/do...nPrecursor.pdf

The key point is that with EE we never consider the vacuum, the aether, itself, while it actually actively reacts to what we do in our circuits.
Electrical currents appear to have two components: 1) the current going trough the wires and 2) the EM waves surrounding the wires going trough the vacuum, the so-called "Heaviside component" that has been wiped out of the Maxwell equations, but which is real and is capable of delivering energy *if* you figure out a way to tap it. It looks like Bedini has found a way: tapping the back-emf from a coil, which wil produce a spike, which he calls "radiant spike". I suspect that spike has a considerable, useable "heaviside" component, which can be stored in caps and/or batteries.

And since it's a wave traveling outside the wires powered by the vacuum, I think it's very likely that that can be considered as a "current-source" and therefore, capturing it with caps in series might give very good results. Time will tell, however....

[nilrehob]

I did a test with 6 caps (and 15 diodes), but no gain.
I guess that if this is something to further investigate in the overall voltage has to be higher to minimize the loss over each diode?

Any comments anyone?

[Matthew Jones]

It looks like Bedini has found a way: tapping the back-emf from a coil, which wil produce a spike, which he calls "radiant spike".

Not to be critical but you have got it a little wrong, and it makes a difference if you were to get away from the monopole.

The Back EMF or counter EMF, is not the spike but the product of the spike.I'll explain.
The spike is common in all inductive circiuts. In fact, if you look through Doc's on motor drivers like relays and High power mosfets they often warn of the transient spiking than can occure from rapid on off. This is very common in high voltage coiled relays. They generally use a form of BEMF suppresion. There are several ways to go about it.
The spike is not regular EMF. It comes from the coils slamming effect. The energy consists of the Non Divergent (Low mass energy) energy flow around the current EM system. Its oppositly charge energy that is attracted to the positive EM in the circiut. When the coil turns on and off rapidly it slams the non divergent energy into a High mass potential, and flips it polarity into a positive energy. Its pure voltage. Somthing like squezzing a wet bar of soap.

This voltage has the capabilty to open the vacuum, the aether, or tesla called it the node, to allow a negative energy flow into the system.
This energy can disapate positive energy, or be collected and used like positive energy. But this is the power in the system. Even in a monopole.
The spike is mearly the means to get your hands on the Negative energy Flow.

Consider it. We already see this energy (Neg Energy) in every convential inductive circiut. And you labled it. BEMF or CEMF.
This energy is oppositly charged. In the circiut showed by Nilrehob which is partially open loop we fire the coil with positive EMF. We let that energy (+ EMF) go to ground in the battery and give the energy that shows up after the coil has fired a path to another positive potential. And it flow in that direction into the positive pole of the battery.
Well we already do this in a regular motor on a regular grounded circiut. But we don't give it a path out. We ask it to stay on the coils iron until we open another path. But the path we open is the positive potential we are trying to use to drive our motor. BANG!! BEMF shows up and we have to burn it off before any potential can drive the motor again. Thats very common and practical EM theory.
Now the common arguement that BEMF in a standard circiut, is always a lower voltage therefore has no real use or potential is flat out wrong. The only reason it has lower voltage is because it just sat on the coil, partially disapated and that coil turned 180 deg. without any potential or releif of potential. We did not address in the system fast enough, and now we have deal with it. It very simple to grab. We just keep Potential on the coil. And give the coil a path to an equal potential and walla the energy flow out of the NODE into the coil and arrives at our battery, where we want it.

Well anyway I'm going to get into a novel here. But my overall point was to clearly show the differences between these energies. I haven't outlined any tests for proof but if you want them I can give them to you. A simple little pulse motor can show you clearly that all of this is true. You just have picture to it. And then watch it. And keep your head clear of all the mystical crap it gets made out to be. Its real simple, and once you see it once you can follow all over the place. Every EM system has the capabilty to recollect energy. How to grab is the biggest question.

Matt

[lamare]

I did a test with 6 caps (and 15 diodes), but no gain.
I guess that if this is something to further investigate in the overall voltage has to be higher to minimize the loss over each diode?

Any comments anyone?

You need a *current* source, not a *voltage* source. I.e: you need a source that supplies a constant current, otherwise it won't make any difference.

If you test it's capability to store radiant spikes, it probably won't work with just diodes, since these won't come even close to being fast enough. You'll have to have the caps in series *before* you try to charge them with a radient spike. The best option for testing this effect would be fixed wiring or using relays, since it's not clear what influence transistors and/or diodes will have.

[lamare]

Not to be critical but you have got it a little wrong, and it makes a difference if you were to get away from the monopole.

The Back EMF or counter EMF, is not the spike but the product of the spike.I'll explain.

No problem, I more then appreciate your comments. The more discussion, the better, since that is how we can learn from eachother. I have studied quite a bit on this forum and from papers I could grab, but it's not easy to get a complete and consistant picture. Beside Beardens papers, Eric Dollards papers are a very interesting read btw: Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991)

I think the most important thing is to realise that the key to understanding all this is understanding what happens outside your circuit.

If you go to the most basic stuff, charge itself, the most important notion is that the electric field generated by any charge is not static. As Bearden says: any dipole (any charge) emits an enormous, continuous flow of energy: the electric field itself. The field is not static, but it expands at the speed of light. Whether it's particles, waves, or whatever: something is flowing and that something is a form of energy. Basically, any charge continiously converts some form of energy (ZPE, "virtual particle flux", or whatever) into an endless flow of electric energy - the ever expanding electric field. Any charge emits a river of energy, most of which just flows away into space never to be seen again.

Sharp pulses, sharp gradients in potential, can have profound (temporal) effects on the energy flows occuring in the vacuum around a circuit. A back-emf spike is such a sudden change in potential. Once you cut of the current into a coil, you get a very rapid change in the potential, the voltage, of the coil wire.
The same kind of rapid voltage change can be obtained by discharging a capacitor trough a spark-gap, like what Gray is doing in his tube.

The interesting thing is that the effects outside the circuit happen at the speed of light, while the currents inside the circuits (electron movement) are much slower. So, you can get electrical effects happening at different times. First, the events at the outside take place and then the events caused by the much slower electron flow take place. Perreault calls this "pre-glow discharge":
Bruce Perreault Claims "Pre-Glow Between Electrodes" to be His Intellectual Property

One thing is clear: "radiant energy" flows outside the circuit. In some videos, Bedini shows neon-bulbs lighting up when touching the plastic of batteries being charged from his motors.

[nilrehob]

You need a *current* source, not a *voltage* source. I.e: you need a source that supplies a constant current, otherwise it won't make any difference.

If you test it's capability to store radiant spikes, it probably won't work with just diodes, since these won't come even close to being fast enough. You'll have to have the caps in series *before* you try to charge them with a radient spike. The best option for testing this effect would be fixed wiring or using relays, since it's not clear what influence transistors and/or diodes will have.

It seems like 4 of my caps (with 9 diodes) works best in my setup.
When I get the chance I'll get myself better diodes for the job.

[Matthew Jones]

One thing is clear: "radiant energy" flows outside the circuit. In some videos, Bedini shows neon-bulbs lighting up when touching the plastic of batteries being charged from his motors.

They were lighting up from static batteries just sitting. Energy from the vacuum part 2.

"Radiant Energy" if thats what you wanna call it, is everywhere. It's all around us all the time. It concentrates around positive EM sources like batteries and circiuts that use positive energy.

I have been looking at trying an experiment that would show you can drain it from the active enviroment. If you were build a small motor like monopole running 12volt or so, then wrap it in a cage of coils that are being pulsed at a higher voltage and see if the production of the monopole is as high while the the cage is active.
The results would turn out 1 of 3 ways.
1.The monopole would continue to produce at the same rate.
2.The monopole would produce at a greater rate.
3. The monopole would produce at lower rate.

If 1 were true, (A)the energy itself is coming from another source parallel to enviroment and the energy was coming from some sort of gate.(B) Or the concentration of it in the enviroment was a constant.
If 2 were true, the same the would be true as 1(A) but you have the abilty to open the gate further, allowing a greater flow. The greater the input energy the greater the flow from the parrallel source. OR (B) No matter the position of the input energy the concentration of radient energy from the enviroment would always progress. The higher the input the higher the concentration.
If 3 were true, this would mean, (A)There is a gate between a parrallel source of the flow and it opens up to the closest or highest source, OR (B)the energy is surrounding everything all the time and you can deplete it from the active enviroment. Lower the concentration if you will.

Based on what I have seen between the variation in charging cycles between night and day, lunar cycles, 60hz flow in a given area I beleive myself 3(B) to be the answer.

But thats one of those things I'll do when I don't need to watch every doller.

Matt