Use for the Tesla Switch

[dambit]

Steve,

No, I don't think so. It's because the load is less to the bigger batteries. I think I can get the batteries to charge better if I reduce the load and use use the potential for charging.

Check Leroy's last post, he explains it better than I can.

John K.

Hi John K,

Ah Yes, I just assumed that the load was scaled up with the batts. My bad.

@all,

I'm new to the Telsa Switch but have been glued to the PC reading John B's comments on the device. Must build one!!

I have a Q though. Some people mention a PWM. Is a seperate PWM required to run the ciruit, or is that part built in?

Cheers,

Steve

[Inquorate]

Hi John K,

Ah Yes, I just assumed that the load was scaled up with the batts. My bad.

@all,

I'm new to the Telsa Switch but have been glued to the PC reading John B's comments on the device. Must build one!!

I have a Q though. Some people mention a PWM. Is a seperate PWM required to run the ciruit, or is that part built in?

Cheers,

Steve

Required, and can be built to be powered by the excess energy - read over again; it's being worked on by several ppl..

See the excitement coming!

[dambit]

Would this unit be ok 12-24V High Current Motor Speed Controller Kit - Jaycar Electronics , or has it got too much useless stuff on it.

It does have a range of up to 7 or 8Khz. It works great in my HHO booster.

Cheers,

Steve.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I would also like to thank John Bedini for coming here to help people build these much needed and overdue devices to help further humanity onward and for all his work, for that matter. I'm setting up to start off testing John B's diagram he posted with the 3 battery, 3 transistor setup. I noticed John K is saying he is getting results by not even pulsing at the test switch point and I am wondering how this is working at this point John K? Reason I ask is because if results can be had without pulsing and then only rotating batteries, then I will start there. Thanks.
peace love light
Tyson

[lamare]

Hi all,

This is definately going in the right direction. I am so glad to have both Peter and John here. Even though I'm not such a good experimenter myself, I have studied a lot of material about free energy. I have studied electrical engineering and hold a masters degree, so when I first saw some video's on free energy on the p2p networks, I didn't believe any of that would work. I thought I knew all about electronics theory and "over unity" and all that was plain BS. So, just out of curiousity I watched some of these video's to have some fun looking at all those outrageous deceivements people were putting up.

And probably there are a lot of deceivers out there, yes. And there is a lot of disinformation out there too. However, I found the work of Eric Dollard, Thomas Bearden, Konstantin Meyl and Klaus Turtur and of course John Bedini very inspiring and thought provoking. I especially like the EM theories of Meyl, because he is really down to earth and sticking to basically nothing but EM field theory, while Bearden also goes a long way into time-related theory, which is hard to grasp and probably not necessary to understand circuits like this.

However, I do like Beardens "don't kill the dipole" and "how circuits are actually powered" theories:
How An Electrical Circuit is REALLY Powered - Bearden for Dummies

"Let me put it this way. Every electrical system we ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the active vacuum by the source dipole in the system."

He explains this concept also very nicely in some of the video's out there. Whenever charge is moving from the + to - poles of a battery or generator, a current flows, which opposes the very reason the current occurs, which is the electric field or potential.

So, it is the electric field that causes the charges to move (do work), while this same movement of charges (current) kills the very reason of it's existence: the field, or the potential on your battery or generator. If you could somehow use the potential of any dipole without killing it, you could get an infinite energy source. In other words: you have to disconnect "current" from "potential" one way or another.

In this line of thinking, the following paper by Klaus Turtur is most interesting:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

In this paper, he shows that the electric field emitted by any charge carrier not only is dynamic (spreading with the speed of light), but it also contains energy. That energy comes from somewhere, which you might call "the Dirac sea" or ZPE, or whatever. Bottomline is: any charge carrier continuously converts some of this "vacuum energy" into a constant stream of "static" electric field energy:

"On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy."


Probably the most important thing to realise is that there are two energy flows in any circuit or wire:
1. the electric (or EM) field(s) - or "radiant energy" as John likes to call it.
2. the current -- charge carriers moving along inside a conductor.

The E(M) field comes for free, it's a continous stream of "vacuum energy" being converted by any charge carrier.

What we're after in all electrical free energy circuits is to find a way to extract this "vacuum energy" without paying the price by killing our dipoles. And as far as I understand, the basic trick for doing that is to exploit the difference in propagation speed of the E(M) field vs. the charge carriers.

If you look at the SG, the Gray tube and the water spark plug, you see that one possibility is to work with abrupt switching of high voltages. So, apparantly fast switching (fast rise/fall times) of high voltages offers one "window of opportunity" to exploit this propagation speed difference.

In the Tesla switch, you're working with batteries, where the charge carriers are ions moving in a fluid. These move much slower than electrons trough a wire, which is why you can exploit this speed difference between E(M) field and charge carriers at much lower frequencies (switching speeds) in comparison to coils, etc.

In a way, a battery can be seen as a very long wire (as Bearden has talked about). When you put some current (charge carriers) in on one side, it takes a relatively long time before they come out on the other side. So, whenever you reverse the current before that time has passed, you can use the potential (Electric field) without killing the dipole.

So, I think that is what all this comes down to: an exploitation of the difference in propagation speed of the EM field vs. the movement of charge carriers.

As for the use of capacitors, there's an interesting post over here mentioning some experiments at MIT:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...dollard-2.html

"Next we have a three-piece dissectible Leyden Jar consisting of two metal cups separated by a glass cup. When charged with the Wimshurst machine, we see by touching it with the shorting rod that it holds a large amount of charge. However, when disassembled, the metal cups can be brought into contact with each other and no spark will be generated. When the jar is reassembled it can then be discharged. This demonstrates that, in this situation, the charge actually resides on the surface of the glass (a dielectric), not on the metal."

If that is true, you can expect a similar low propagation speed of the charge carriers inside capacitors, but I guess probably still ignificantly higher than in a battery. So, I would guess a Tesla switch using capacitors will be a lot harder to get working than a battery-based one, because you probably have to switch significantly faster.

[John_K]

Hi folks, I would also like to thank John Bedini for coming here to help people build these much needed and overdue devices to help further humanity onward and for all his work, for that matter. I'm setting up to start off testing John B's diagram he posted with the 3 battery, 3 transistor setup. I noticed John K is saying he is getting results by not even pulsing at the test switch point and I am wondering how this is working at this point John K? Reason I ask is because if results can be had without pulsing and then only rotating batteries, then I will start there. Thanks.
peace love light
Tyson

Tyson, I don't fully understand why it works but I'll keep studying it until I do. No sense in building something if you don't know how it works. I know it uses a difference in potential and the less current you draw off it, the more the batteries will charge.
You'll need to build it yourself and study the same.

John K.

[Inquorate]

I started a thread for discussion of the how's and wherefore's here;

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...nt-spikes.html

And I'll repost your post lamare; good description

Love and light

[SkyWatcher]

Hi John K, thanks for the reply. Of course I will be testing that setup, however, I'm wondering why then, would we need the transistors at all in there if were not pulsing it. Maybe they still serve a function and if your still getting real net gains on all your batts then that's good enough for me to test it.
peace love light
Tyson

[ldissing]

Setup

Leroy,
That is where the magic is, The spike is the key to the Dirac Sea that is where the negative energy pops out of, chase the spike.
John B

Thank you for your responses. I do have the modified SG3425 circuit. Thank you for that too!

That has been my goal since I figured out what is going on. Well, I should not say "figured out", because I still do not totally understand WHY it does what it does, but I understand the "when", when it does what it does.

At higher frequencies, it provides more differential which I find interesting too. You'd think, just looking at the circuit, that you get what you can see with the diode and transistor drops, but you can get even more. So, are the batteries really at a higher potential, or are there more spikes...which manifests itself at the output?

I can get it to the point that....it looks like, well, the scalar battery charger at certain frequencies. They are one in the same really, same kind of situation going in in there.

I hope I did not say too much. That is why I asked if you wanted it posted. I could have said more, and I'm long winded anyway. Say to much and people shut down and quit reading. I know that people are still not totally ready, but Matthew is and he is doing the right things. He was the one who peaked my interest in this again with his experiments. Thank you Matthew! Matthew, if you are still in N.C., let me know. I'm in S.C. right now but moving back to Texas, unfortunately which will put me on hold for a while...in about a week. Love to get together and compare notes sometime.

Now, the biggie. You should see my crappy setup. It is the worst nightmare you could possibly imagine - and it still works. You do not need to build it with circuit boards and precision. You will get even better results with it if you do (I'm guessing), but a little bailn' wire and glue will hold the thing together and let you see it.

Guys, quit asking questions and build it. Don't ask what transistors, capacitors, batteries, loads, wire sizes, oscillators, etc. You do NOT need PWM, but it is helpful and self adjusting with micros, comparators, etc. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED PWM TO SEE IT WORK, sorry about the yelling. There is enough on JBs page and on this forum to build whatever you want. JB has posted everything you need and my diagram is just the 3 battery multiplied by 2 with one extra battery. Build it with the components shown by JB FIRST. If you don't have them, then get them. Beg, borrow, but don't steal and make it work with these components, then try other ones...I have a few ideas going through my head.

I'm finally done.

Leroy

[ldissing]

@John Bedini: 7th H11D1?

Keep forgetting to ask you...what is the 7th H11D1 on the circuit board for? You have one for each transistor, but there is one mounted right in the middle of the board. What in the world, is that for?

Leroy

[Mark]

Hi John

Will your new kit come with a board? And thank-you for your presence here!

I'm not nearly as skilled as most and think I will start testing the simple 3 battery set up and possibly the scalar charger. The scalar charger makes me think of the bipolar switch, which I've changed slightly and had run a SG for a week straight and only lost .03 volts of the primary while charging a secondary. Sorry off topic.

P.S. Any idea on a time frame for the new kit.

Mark

[Helijason]

Microprocessor Thoughts

First, thanks to all that have started testing and to JB for his help. In this regard I'll be working toward duplicating work already done here.

Microprocessor
I am a digital person, so to me a microprocessor makes the most sense. My thoughts for a microprocessor is to avoid using pots for inputs to control the frequency. I like in-circuit programing, but I think we should go beyond just changing code.

Right now it looks like our variables are +Q on time, transition off time, and -Q on time (and maybe a seperate -Q off time?). Knowing this I think we should head toward a microprocessor that we tell (serially)it what parameters to use for our experimentation. I've done this many moons ago on an university solar vehicle project. We had our communication module respond to a letter comand so we could get data from the car through a radio modem. We can set up a menu that allows us to change the above variables and to collect data. I think this will allow us the most flexibility and control to experiment with this circuit. I don't want this to overconsume our time right now so for now I'll focus on John's baby steps!

Collecting data is a future problem, but I'd like to finish my thought. I'm still unsure what exactly Ron's note of "D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D1 & D5 together." (Not a direct quote) Right now I'm thinking this is voltage, but analog is not my expertise (need to build and experiment!) Is this the point that one should switch Q? It appears that we would also have a similar relationship, D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D4 & D8 together. If this is the case then you need to have 6 isolated reference voltages to measure depending on where you are in the cycle. I wonder if battery voltages could be used to determine when to switch , thus only requiring 4 isolated references. Need to experiment to know what is needed.

Regards, Jason

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

First, thanks to all that have started testing and to JB for his help. In this regard I'll be working toward duplicating work already done here.

Microprocessor
I am a digital person, so to me a microprocessor makes the most sense. My thoughts for a microprocessor is to avoid using pots for inputs to control the frequency. I like in-circuit programing, but I think we should go beyond just changing code.

Right now it looks like our variables are +Q on time, transition off time, and -Q on time (and maybe a seperate -Q off time?). Knowing this I think we should head toward a microprocessor that we tell (serially)it what parameters to use for our experimentation. I've done this many moons ago on an university solar vehicle project. We had our communication module respond to a letter comand so we could get data from the car through a radio modem. We can set up a menu that allows us to change the above variables and to collect data. I think this will allow us the most flexibility and control to experiment with this circuit. I don't want this to overconsume our time right now so for now I'll focus on John's baby steps!

Collecting data is a future problem, but I'd like to finish my thought. I'm still unsure what exactly Ron's note of "D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D1 & D5 together." (Not a direct quote) Right now I'm thinking this is voltage, but analog is not my expertise (need to build and experiment!) Is this the point that one should switch Q? It appears that we would also have a similar relationship, D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D4 & D8 together. If this is the case then you need to have 6 isolated reference voltages to measure depending on where you are in the cycle. I wonder if battery voltages could be used to determine when to switch , thus only requiring 4 isolated references. Need to experiment to know what is needed.

Regards, Jason

Great thoughts Jason, in fact I am designing my PIC to do that. That said, this TS can be a versatile device for handling different types of loads. Baby steps are needed to get the switching (oscillations down to a science) and I am sure with all of the great minds and LAB test beds this forum has to offer, we'll achieve this. We must be very careful though when we display our test results as we must be able to compare "Apples to Apples". Let me explain, test results of a "Resistive load" will be different than a "Reactive load" that will be even different than an "Inductive load". Once we know how this TS will react to the battery charging process, we then can work to adjust the oscillations (frequency, on / off times etc.) based on measured points within the total circuit through the microprocessor algorithms. So great things lie ahead of us being able explore this new energy and we must all be "in Sync" with our testing.

My thoughts!

Bit's

[John_Bedini]

Tesla Switch

Jason,
Do not jump to fast here as there is more going on then meet's the eye. Leroy is about to find that out. You need to design an analog computer for this one. It must abstract think on some of this. I was looking at the same thing last night. The 5th opto is for self charging. Ok if you guys do this digital will you post the program and the chip your using? Some can't do digital work and you will need to help them to understand how the programming works. I will make the circuit board with the simple kit.

John B

First, thanks to all that have started testing and to JB for his help. In this regard I'll be working toward duplicating work already done here.

Microprocessor
I am a digital person, so to me a microprocessor makes the most sense. My thoughts for a microprocessor is to avoid using pots for inputs to control the frequency. I like in-circuit programing, but I think we should go beyond just changing code.

Right now it looks like our variables are +Q on time, transition off time, and -Q on time (and maybe a seperate -Q off time?). Knowing this I think we should head toward a microprocessor that we tell (serially)it what parameters to use for our experimentation. I've done this many moons ago on an university solar vehicle project. We had our communication module respond to a letter comand so we could get data from the car through a radio modem. We can set up a menu that allows us to change the above variables and to collect data. I think this will allow us the most flexibility and control to experiment with this circuit. I don't want this to overconsume our time right now so for now I'll focus on John's baby steps!

Collecting data is a future problem, but I'd like to finish my thought. I'm still unsure what exactly Ron's note of "D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D1 & D5 together." (Not a direct quote) Right now I'm thinking this is voltage, but analog is not my expertise (need to build and experiment!) Is this the point that one should switch Q? It appears that we would also have a similar relationship, D9, D10 Each one must be equal to D4 & D8 together. If this is the case then you need to have 6 isolated reference voltages to measure depending on where you are in the cycle. I wonder if battery voltages could be used to determine when to switch , thus only requiring 4 isolated references. Need to experiment to know what is needed.

Regards, Jason

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

Jason,
Ok if you guys do this digital will you post the program and the chip your using? Some can't do digital work and you will need to help them to understand how the programming works. I will make the circuit board with the simple kit.

John B

You bet John, I will post the code. I will say that I will need help, as you see the sensing points needed and how they should alter the oscillation. This is purely unknown at this time. Jason, might I recommend that you(and others with digital saavy) and I work towards the digital end of this?

Thanks
Jeff (Bit's)