Free energy is a myth

[med.3012]

@ android3000

i just want to understand you ......... your thread has the wrong IP address! i really can't tune my mind to what your are trying to tell us.

just be clear .... after that i will just listen to every words you say

remember this is a science.

[QEG]

no.not that great. read here , here and here



no you can't, pure resistive load and inductive load not the same, ever



so far, only tesla switch, don smith and eric dollard device or variation of these device are real.
they have the same basic principle.
unfortunate that these people don't share detail theory but just show a working device that almost anyone can't understand how the device operate or they understand but keep it to them self like what i about to do cause i start to think this whole thing such a waste of time.

people here don't even bother to do some research or Google because keep refuting me even on something that every engineer should now

The "Tesla Switch"? Not this again. This may be a real device but it has not, does not and will never produce any "Free Energy". Using a fully charged battery to re-charge a discharged battery will always convert some of the energy into HEAT in both batteries. This HEAT Energy is lost forever. Since the discharge / recharge process is only about 85% efficient means there is less and less and less energy remaining in the set of batteries after every recharge & swap cycle.
So, what else do you have?
.

[mbrownn]

If we take two identical caps and try to charge one from the other using simple low resistance wires we end up with significantly less than half the energy in each cap. The amount lost is far greater than can be explained by the the losses due to ohms law in the wire. Placing a diode in the circuit actually adds to the loss as there are losses in the diode too.

If we place a diode and a suitable inductor in the circuit we find the energy appears to have transferred from one cap to the other. I don’t believe that this is the full story. Placing an inductor in the circuit does not prevent losses, they will still be there and are unavoidable.

The common belief is that energy is stored in the magnetic field of the inductor so that when we no longer have voltage to cause the current to flow, the collapsing field of the inductor provides the voltage to allow the current to continue to flow. This ability to provide voltage is equal (less ohmic losses) to the energy that passed through the coil creating the magnetic field in the first place. In this theory it is the inductor that is providing the energy that not only allows the current to flow but also makes up for the losses.

In a three battery system, we are reusing current with voltage being lost at each stage. Yes, we get to use it more than once therefore it does provide a better coefficient of performance than a single use. You are correct that placing an inductor in the circuit with its ability to add voltage will improve it further, but it isn't a requirement in the recycling of the current in a three battery system.

It may well be better to use a transformer in place of the single inductor because a second current is produced in its secondary coil that can also be taken advantage of. This has been demonstrated on another thread on this forum. IE the tesla switch.

I have also used a similar method in a different device.

Here we have two methods of improving the COP. recycling of current in the three battery system and energy provided by an inductor. It could be that the secondary current in a transformer makes a third contribution.

It is true that many are reluctant to share information and it is also true that many of us fail to understand the information given to us. A youtube video may be interesting to watch and informative but its like the peacock displaying its feathers. What we need to know is how to do it, then we need to know how to understand it and that’s where the theory comes in.

Watching a video of someone riding a bike only gives you so much, even when we are told how to ride a bike, that does not help us make a better bike. Its the understanding what the bike is doing that is the key.

Go ahead android, Im listening

[mbrownn]

The "Tesla Switch"? Not this again. This may be a real device but it has not, does not and will never produce any "Free Energy". Using a fully charged battery to re-charge a discharged battery will always convert some of the energy into HEAT in both batteries. This HEAT Energy is lost forever. Since the discharge / recharge process is only about 85% efficient means there is less and less and less energy remaining in the set of batteries after every recharge & swap cycle.

love it.

There are anomalous effects of pulse charging lead acid batteries which give us an apparent gain, and there is the effect of inductive kickback which does the same, so im sure a well built tesla switch will work although I have never built one.

Im interested in something that does not require a bank of batteries

[QEG]

love it.

There are anomalous effects of pulse charging lead acid batteries which give us an apparent gain, and there is the effect of inductive kickback which does the same, so im sure a well built tesla switch will work although I have never built one.

Im interested in something that does not require a bank of batteries

Nope, there is no anomalous effect of pulse charging that gives any apparent gain in a discharged battery. There are only losses. And you cannot even break-even, let alone have a gain. I am 100% positive that no Tesla Switch can create any "Free Energy".

Think about it ...
When you move X amount of energy out of Battery #1 and lose energy as heat; then move through the load and lose energy as HEAT; then move into Battery #2 and lose energy as HEAT then you MUST have LESS THAN X amount of energy to re-charge Battery #2. It is just simple math.

The Tesla 3-Battery Switch is a LOSE - LOSE - LOSE circuit.
There are no gains anywhere.
And it does not matter if it is steady current or pulses.
Pulses are not "magical", as you suggest.

If what you are saying was true then every electric vehicle would charge one battery while discharging two batteries. But they don't. Why not? Because your idea does not work.

[Turion]

I am 100% positive that no Tesla Switch can create any "Free Energy".

The Tesla 3-Battery Switch is a LOSE - LOSE - LOSE circuit.

It must be nice to be so confident. So how many Tesla Switches have you built? How many years have you been experimenting with them?

Having spent the better part of the last 9 years building 3 battery setups and doing hundreds if not thousands of hours of experiments; having had setups that ran for months on the same batteries before finally running down; having had other setups that ran for weeks before running down and others for days (when in ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES the setup should only run for HOURS) Having built many "Tesla" type switches as well, I can tel you that I am 100% positive that you are incorrect. But you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

And believe it or not, I'm pretty sure I know of a "Tesla switch" setup (based on someone else's work and patents) that is running right now, and has been running for quite some time. Likely more than a year now. Unfortunately it is not mine to share, other than to say I believe it exists.

Dave

[mbrownn]

Nope, there is no anomalous effect of pulse charging that gives any apparent gain in a discharged battery. There are only losses. And you cannot even break-even, let alone have a gain. I am 100% positive that no Tesla Switch can create any "Free Energy".

Think about it ...
When you move X amount of energy out of Battery #1 and lose energy as heat; then move through the load and lose energy as HEAT; then move into Battery #2 and lose energy as HEAT then you MUST have LESS THAN X amount of energy to re-charge Battery #2. It is just simple math.

The Tesla 3-Battery Switch is a LOSE - LOSE - LOSE circuit.
There are no gains anywhere.
And it does not matter if it is steady current or pulses.
Pulses are not "magical", as you suggest.

If what you are saying was true then every electric vehicle would charge one battery while discharging two batteries. But they don't. Why not? Because your idea does not work.

I can't speak about the Tesla switch directly as I have never built one but I suspect it is possible. As you suggest, there are losses when you transfer energy from one battery to another, this is 100% true. Pulses are not magical, all the laws of physics apply.

I will share my experience with pulse charging lead acid batteries. Using a Bedini SSG circuit I have charged and discharged batteries 1000s of times with meters everywhere you can put meters, and as expected losses are seen everywhere. The motor was around 25% efficient, the output from the coil was about 70% efficient (as best as I could tell from my meters) so no surprises. When the charging battery had gone through a number of charge discharge cycles and I was monitoring the input, I noticed that it reached full charge as far as volts were concerned, I then discharged it through a light bulb noting the power consumed. I then recharged it again and noted that the input to my Bedini was slightly more than what I had discharged. I repeated this many times and got an average of 97% charge efficiency between the source and charging battery + or - 5%. Nothing weird there although it was very efficient.

When I looked at the output of the Bedini and compared it to what was found in the charging battery, it didn't make sense. The output of the Bedini was about 70% of what I found in the charged battery, even allowing for the margin of error ie published meter accuracy, the battery should not have been fully charged, but it was. Its what I call an anomalous result, and has been replicated and verified by many other people with better equipment than me.

This only occurred when the battery was on charge discharge cycles with only short breaks in between. If the battery was left for a week this "anomalous" charging effect would not be there.

If the conditions are right, the effect is real.

The problem with a lot of the "free energy" devices is that their effect is fleeting and sometimes difficult to reproduce.

If we compare the input and outputs of the Bedini being 70% electrical and 25% mechanical we have 95% of the input, just as we could expect. 5% must be heat losses. When we compare what what is found in the charged battery and the mechanical compared to the input, we have an anomaly.

The conditions are as follows:

The charge and discharge rates of the batteries must be as close as possible to 1/20th of the Ah rating.

The temperature of the room where I did the experiment was always in the range of 24 to 28C

The discharge was done on a continuous resistive load (a bulb)

The charge was always done on the Bedini.

For more information refer to the many Bedini threads.

I laughed because I understand the scepticism of the Tesla switch but there is more to it than just pulsing. I am not an expert on it but there are some aspects of it which lead me to believe there is something in it.

No electrical circuit is a closed system because we always have losses. In the same way there must be ways to cause energy to enter a system. A crystal set is a perfect example, yes it does use power from the transmission towers but it also draws power from the electromagnetic environment we live in. Coils seem to be the device to do that.

With a 3 battery system you start with 2 full batteries and one dead one. after the first run you have 1 full battery and 2 half empty ones. After swapping the batteries and running the system again we have 1 full battery 1 1/4 empty and one 3/4 empty one. We change the batteries around again, run it once more and so on. yes eventually all the batteries are dead but we run the motor much longer than we could by just using 2 batteries, one at a time. Simple math as you say

I think 3 battery systems would be used in cars if they were not so big, heavy and expensive.

[QEG]

If we take two identical caps and try to charge one from the other using simple low resistance wires we end up with significantly less than half the energy in each cap. The amount lost is far greater than can be explained by the the losses due to ohms law in the wire. Placing a diode in the circuit actually adds to the loss as there are losses in the diode too.

If we place a diode and a suitable inductor in the circuit we find the energy appears to have transferred from one cap to the other. I don’t believe that this is the full story. Placing an inductor in the circuit does not prevent losses, they will still be there and are unavoidable.

The common belief is that energy is stored in the magnetic field of the inductor so that when we no longer have voltage to cause the current to flow, the collapsing field of the inductor provides the voltage to allow the current to continue to flow. This ability to provide voltage is equal (less ohmic losses) to the energy that passed through the coil creating the magnetic field in the first place. In this theory it is the inductor that is providing the energy that not only allows the current to flow but also makes up for the losses.

Go ahead android, Im listening

In reality, the mathematics for "one capacitor charging another capacitor" does prove and confirm that 50% of the Energy is lost, as measured in the real world. I think the real problem is, you do not understand the math and therefore you falsely claim "Ohms Law is violated". Your claim that "Ohms Law is violated" is pure nonsense.

Actually, it is the INDUCTOR that significantly reduces the 50% loss of energy when charging a capacitor from another Voltage Source. The electrical model for inductor is more like CURRENT SOURCE, not a Voltage Source. It appears that you do not understand the difference between a Voltage Source and Current Source. The inductor, acting as Current Source, is WHY a Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS) is so dang efficient. The inductor is extremely efficient at transferring energy from a Higher Voltage source to a Lower Voltage destination. Your claim that, "the 50% losses are unavoidable", is 100% wrong. Significant reduction of the "50% LOSSES" is TRUE whether you choose to believe it or not. And that is why almost every personal computer, monitor, printer, laptop, cell phone, smart phone, pda, etc uses a SMPS with an inductor. A SMPS can be over 90% efficient at rated power and it is all because of the INDUCTOR.


Switch Mode Power Supplies do NOT violate Ohms Law, as you claim.
In fact, they are designed using Ohms Law.

For further clarification, the Switching Regulator posted by android3000 is a Buck Regulator, not a Flyback Regulator.

[QEG]

It must be nice to be so confident. So how many Tesla Switches have you built? How many years have you been experimenting with them?

Having spent the better part of the last 9 years building 3 battery setups and doing hundreds if not thousands of hours of experiments; having had setups that ran for months on the same batteries before finally running down; having had other setups that ran for weeks before running down and others for days (when in ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES the setup should only run for HOURS) Having built many "Tesla" type switches as well, I can tel you that I am 100% positive that you are incorrect. But you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

And believe it or not, I'm pretty sure I know of a "Tesla switch" setup (based on someone else's work and patents) that is running right now, and has been running for quite some time. Likely more than a year now. Unfortunately it is not mine to share, other than to say I believe it exists.

Dave

Then why doesn't Telsa Motors use your SWITCH idea in their electric automobile? Are you telling me that Telsa Motors prefers to get less energy out their batteries than you can?

[Joit]

Then why doesn't Telsa Motors use your SWITCH idea in their electric automobile? Are you telling me that Telsa Motors prefers to get less energy out their batteries than you can?

Why Tesla Motors doesnt use it? Why does noone use it. Who DOES use something similar like a Tesla switch at her Devices.

And Turion should answer that Question what the Industry does or better not does? Seriously?

But i can find easy at last 1 Reason. Since when is the Tesla Switch more or less public known and since when does it exist. Compare this 2 Numbers of Years and think by yourself, why its not teached at schools.
And 2nd reason is, that Big Oil still want earn some money also the gov with good taxes on gas.

If you want invent something like a device with a tesla switch, you will probatly also get some problems by trying to sell such thing at the market.

Our rulers of the market do not want longterm products, they want something where they can make sales, every year or two, at last after the guarantee did end.
And your gov welcomes such products because they would suck by loosing this incomes.

Same goes for charging batteries, i charge my accumulators since years with other circuits as with the classical chargers.
They did increase at her capacity and exceed far her 1000 chargecycles.
I can proove the capacity easy by simple watching the runtime from it.
Charging them again with the conventional method cause, as usual, loss at capacity from the accumulators.
So, now answer YOU the Question. Why are this methods of more efficient charging not common knowledge from the standards today.

Your Example of the smps. You mean its efficient compared to the crap transformators they usual used at most devices to provide certain Voltages.
Thats probatly right.

I pretty doubt that the switching regulator like posted from android is a buck regulator.
It probatly would be without switch, but with the switch the Cap more charge up to the voltage of the spikes what it creates.
But it depends on the components what you use too.


Btw, hows the QEG project going, still at the Point to adjusting the Lamps to the Coils or come any further for now?

[Turion]

QEG,
Why do companies purposely make products that break or wear out when they have the capacity to make the exact same product that will last much. MUCH longer? Why are products that last TOO long (Like the simple McCulloch ORIGINAL Mite E Lite generator) discontinued or removed from the market? Why have the inventions of HUNDREDS of inventors been shelved and the inventors intimidated into silence?

What world do YOU live in that you don't know the answer to these simple questions? Just because YOU are not aware of something does not mean it does not exist. Ask anyone who has put together the simple 3BGS and actually spent time experimenting with it, comparing its output to the output of two batteries used in series or two batteries used one after the other. Sorry my friend, you are just incorrect. Nobody can be right all the time. Believe me, I am the world's greatest walking example of being wrong about things. But not this.

Dave

[shylo]

it's all around

We as people have figured out how to use about 1percent of the energy around us.
It'll never be free , but it can be alot more abundant.
artv

[mbrownn]

In reality, the mathematics for "one capacitor charging another capacitor" does prove and confirm that 50% of the Energy is lost, as measured in the real world. I think the real problem is, you do not understand the math and therefore you falsely claim "Ohms Law is violated". Your claim that "Ohms Law is violated" is pure nonsense.

I never said that ohms law is violated, that's why it is a law and not a theory, it cant be violated.

Actually, it is the INDUCTOR that significantly reduces the 50% loss of energy when charging a capacitor from another Voltage Source.

Not true, the loss must still be there. Ill explain below.

The electrical model for inductor is more like CURRENT SOURCE, not a Voltage Source. It appears that you do not understand the difference between a Voltage Source and Current Source.

Not quite right. The inductor tries to maintain a constant current by raising the voltage to whatever is required to overcome the impedance it faces ie its an ideal current source as it will maintain current. To do this it has to be a source of voltage

The inductor is extremely efficient at transferring energy from a Higher Voltage source to a Lower Voltage destination. Your claim that, "the 50% losses are unavoidable", is 100% wrong. Significant reduction of the "50% LOSSES" is TRUE whether you choose to believe it or not.

Wrong. The inductor is no more efficient than the wire it is made from. What is happening here is an "apparent" increase in efficiency of the whole circuit although no components have miraculously increased in efficiency. The inductor is still a loss making component under ohms law and we know this as it produces heat. The only explanation for this is that by some means it has become a source of voltage, and so current, as described above. If we accept that energy cannot miraculously appear then it has come from another source. I suspect that the source is the environment.

The capacity of the energy that the inductor puts into the system is equal to the energy passed through the coil to create the magnetic field, less ohmic losses. From what I understand this is how mathematical models of an inductor are structured. Correct me if I am wrong

Switch Mode Power Supplies do NOT violate Ohms Law, as you claim.

I never made such a claim, and to suggest I did, is a straw man argument.

So in conclusion, Inductors have no effect on the efficiency of other individual components, ohms law always applies. The inductor under specific circumstances becomes a voltage (and so current) source. Its reference to being a current source is because it will provide the same current out regardless of the impedance it faces within the limitations of the energy available when its magnetic field was set up (personally I think it is a misleading term. The same applies to what is said about a capacitor)

As far as mathematical models go, I believe them to be very useful and use them all the time but in the end they are not reality. You can make a mathematical model of a chair, but you cant sit on it

When you question peoples knowledge and beliefs, try to be a little less pointed and avoid using straw man arguments, this way you will get civil responses and the discussion wont turn into a slanging match.

[Yvonne Hanna]

I have never built anything myself so I am in awe of others. This looks simple but remember to wear the gloves, they keep saying this so it must be very imp. when handling the nano materials, I am starting with the link to the machine first and working back to the beginning stages.

Go to 55.50 mins on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOukFL5lI1A

There is a series of these videos but watching a couple will give an idea on gans - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrgM64F3eeY

Nano -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExiPfEdtM1U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL64BQeEjEo

[android3000]

Live Die Repeat

Ok, I need to ask people here please stop bickering on known physic law, there nothing wrong with modern science, at least in electromagnetic field because this whole thing already been tested and human have built a lot of device base on these law, if it wrong than it a miracle that few people die using modern day machinery unless the contraption is design to kill.
So please read good book like Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers or The Art of Electronics - Horowitz & Hill, good book, learn a lot and for SMPS, BROWN, M. (2001). Power Supply Cookbook works.

About tesla switch

Switching the battery don’t produce free energy instead cause loss of energy, I shown this in second post or somewhere, so there no magic in the battery or wire or some ninth rays that explain everything.

Tesla switch actually a bipolar wave generator, the wave move forward and backward periodically, I assume in tesla time, modern electronic don’t exist yet, this probably the easiest way to create bipolar wave and it is second cousin to ac wave that tesla famous for.

So stop looking at the battery or some other weird stuff, there is none, even if there is one, I am sure you can’t buy it since most factories will make sure the battery that they sell follow their design guidelines probably set by IEEE.

Part of the secret is in the electrical signal. Now, with ac, power become real and imaginary exist in ratio define by power factor. If the load is inductive than the power factor is low. What do you think tesla tried to do here?


Yvonne, babe, can you make a new thread, it easier for people to follow and study, I think new idea or device deserve its own thread. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sorry for late post, been busy with holiday, Chinese New Year and stuff. My internet connection suck too, happen every holiday in my country, people prefer to call their relative instead of meeting them.