The bistander thread

[ricards]

Everything is part of nature, all nature ever does is to seek balance.. It is a choice to benefit from it.

[bistander]

Finally

Not trying to put words in your mouth. Is it fair to say that your COMPUTATION of how much energy was converted is based on what came out if the battery and how efficiently the motor ”converted” that energy (as determined by the test you talked about) into mechanical energy?

In other words, you believe the electrical energy that came out of the battery and went into the motor was basically ALL converted (dependent on the motor’s efficiency rating) into mechanical energy. That all the energy that came out of the battery was either converted to mechanical energy or lost due to the inefficiency of the conversion process. Is that correct?

Hi Turion,

Sorry for the delay in reply. All I can figure is there is a bug in my WiFi at home here. I am bypassing it now.

Yes. "That all the energy that came out of the battery was either converted to mechanical energy or lost due to the inefficiency of the conversion process. Is that correct?" Yes, that's it. If by "lost", you mean converted to heat.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Crap

I'm still having problems with connection.

[BroMikey]

Bingo Battery Time.

Battery metal breaking down of chemical process inside.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TvYlJ06MXo[/VIDEO]

This is not a theory. The metals change form and can be measured.
Chemical changed in the battery is not an attack on your theories.

What has been stated on your part is separate from your story line.

Just trying to get a rise. Looks like I succeeded. The theory part is what
you are discussing not the metal changes. What is it I forget, sulfates on
one side and oxides on the other and then a reconstruction during the
reverse process. Measuring these by products is no theory.

This was to drive you over to using capacitors as your next series
of statements to cut down on confusion. Besides I know that caps
are what the big boys are using.

It is no secret so you don't have to hide. The caps out there can start
a car without all of the losses batteries produce however small.

Also I doubt many people understand a lead battery.

[Turion]

Conclusion

I wasn't able to post much of what I typed up the other day, and had to break it into parts to even get it to post. There is some left, and here it is, although who knows how many posts it will take to get it all in here.

BroMikey,
I know what accepted theory is for how a battery works. I just don't happen to agree with ALL of that

So to finish....Now I am not saying there are NO losses in running a motor on a battery. Resistance and impedance in electrical circuits exist, and there are losses because of them. BUT NOT MUCH. SO when you charge a battery you replace a bit of missing energy, but MOSTLY you beat the crap out of the battery with pulses to move or "align" the "energy" inside it.

[Turion]

continues

The 3 battery system was the SIMPLEST layout of the theory we could show that was easy to replicate, and people need to ask themselves ONE simple question. With the motor in place that is supposedly converting "ALL" the energy that goes through it to mechanical energy, how is there ANY energy to charge battery 3 AT ALL? (I put "all" in quotes because I know you will nit pick and say not "all" of the energy was actually converted to mechanical energy because the motor is not 100% efficient, because that is what you do...nit pick details instead of focusing on what is important.

[Turion]

more

Run the setup without battery 3 there and with a DEAD battery 3 there. Did the amp draw go UP because battery 3 was an additional load in "series" with the motor? No, it did not. Did the voltage going into the motor go UP when battery 3 is added" in series" with the motor? No, it did not. So if the amp draw and voltage going to the motor with and WITHOUT battery 3 is the same, where does the energy come from that charges battery 3 if it was all converted to "mechanical energy" by the motor. The answer is, it WASN'T converted.
Now the simplest experiment you can possibly do to see if this is for real is to use two large caps...say 50 farad, a charger, a stock DC motor of any kind, and a kilowatt meter. Follow these steps. A. Charge one cap to full, attach a kilowatt meter to it and measure the output to a motor as the motor runs down.
B. Recharge the cap and put it in parallel with the second cap placing the motor between the positives. C. Once the motor quits running and the caps are equalized, attach the kilowatt meter to one of the caps and run the motor off of it, measuring the power used. D. Then do the same thing with the other capacitor. You will see that what you got in C and D, add up to almost exactly what you got in A. SO where did the energy come from to run the motor since you have accounted for all the energy. With batteries it is harder to see because of the resistance and impedance in batteries, but it is still there.
.

[Turion]

The last

Now the SECRET is USING that energy in batteries to power loads WITHOUT allowing it to equalize between the two sides. That can be done in many ways. Large loads. THE UNIVERSE, if you can string the wire.

[bistander]

Hi Turion,

Are you also having difficulty posting?

I have the parts. I'll see if I can run that test with the caps.

bi

Hmmm. That post worked. Wonder if edit does.

{edit} Yep. I composed a couple of replies which I was unable to post. And, BTW, it'll take a few days to run that test.

It's actually pretty easy to calculate the test results, but I'll wait for the test. Anybody else is welcome to run the test. Please do. Turion, do you have data from your capacitor test?

[Turion]

Posting

Yeah, having problems posting. I let Asron know. Site is being updated.

As for data on caps experiment. I did all my experiments long ago to verify that the energy goes through the load (motor) and isn’t converted to mechanical energy. I started with batteries first. You can do similar experiments with batteries if you have a GOOD battery analyzer. I THOUGHT I was seeing something, but batteries are affected by heat, cold, sulfation, etc. and while you might get the same results for days at a time, suddenly you get a different result and you begin to doubt. Caps are more consistent and dependable, but you have to have some big ones to run a motor for very long. The bigger the better. Until you are convinced about the load, there is no next step.

[BroMikey]

I

BroMikey,
I know what accepted theory is for how a battery works. I just don't happen to agree Wirth that

So to finish....

Battery metal breaking down of chemical process inside.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TvYlJ06MXo[/VIDEO]

This is not a theory. The metals change form and can be measured.
Chemical changed in the battery is not an attack on your theories.

What has been stated on your part is separate from your story line.

Just trying to get a rise. Looks like I succeeded. The theory part is what
you are discussing not the metal changes. What is it I forget, sulfates on
one side and oxides on the other and then a reconstruction during the
reverse process. Measuring these by products is no theory.

This was to drive you over to using capacitors as your next series
of statements to cut down on confusion. Besides I know that caps
are what the big boys are using.

It is no secret so you don't have to hide. The caps out there can start
a car without all of the losses batteries produce however small.

Also I doubt many people understand a lead battery. Very complex
and always changing. Plate area changing but so does a cap.

[Aaron]

posting errors

Some of you are mentioning problems with post, if you can give specific details here, that would be appreciated - see the last sentence or two.

http://www.energeticforum.com/announ...tic-forum.html

[Aaron]

Battery science

This is not a theory. The metals change form and can be measured.
Chemical changed in the battery is not an attack on your theories.

What has been stated on your part is separate from your story line.

Just trying to get a rise. Looks like I succeeded. The theory part is what
you are discussing not the metal changes. What is it I forget, sulfates on
one side and oxides on the other and then a reconstruction during the
reverse process. Measuring these by products is no theory.

Also I doubt many people understand a lead battery. Very complex
and always changing. Plate area changing but so does a cap.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

BroMikey, this is addressed more to Bistander because he just doesn't get it. Turion might not be using all the accepted terminology, but anyone who is honest or has any common sense can at least comprehend the principles that he is sharing.

The bottom line chemistry of a lead acid battery is that it is a water fuel cell. It all comes down to creating a water molecule or destroying a water molecule.

When you run current through the battery, the sulfate on the lead goes into the solution destroying a water molecule in the process. When you power a load from the battery, you are creating a water molecule as the sulfate goes to the plate.

Neither charging nor discharging adds to takes away from anything in the battery and Turion is correct - charging a battery doesn't fill it with a magical charge that doesn't exist and there is no electricity or charge intrinsic to the chemicals themselves.

When you charge a battery, you don't "charge it up". All you do is separate the internal "charges" of the chemistry to their respective sides - it is just polarizing the chemistry so there is a high and low at the terminals. That's it.

When you discharge the battery, you're not draining anything from it. Part of the dipole's POTENTIAL gets dissipated to a lower potential by any resistance it encounters as that EMF (electromotive force) flows over the wire, which limits that EMF flow to nearly the speed of light. The electrons jump orbit being attracted towards the positive terminal at a rate of a few inches per hour (conduction current).

That resistance from causing conduction current (so-called electrons) to flow is drag from the loosely bound electrons in the copper wire itself and those electrons and it's current flow did not come from inside the battery.

Part of that dissipation of potential energy, which is what work is and is the only real definition of energy, goes to powering the load and part of it depolarizes the chemistry in the battery so when the voltage and load powering capability of the battery goes down, it didn't run out of anything, it just depolarized so the chemistry moves towards equilibrium.

If a battery is "charged" properly, the chemistry is 100% reversible to like new condition on each charge cycle and is why a lead acid battery can have a theoretical infinite life span. Battery chargers should be called battery polarizers because that is an accurate description of what they actually do. Unfortunately, almost all chargers chronically under charge the batteries and this is why they break down and die. Plenty of members here know this to be true.

So where did the EMF come from since it did not come from the chemistry in the battery or any magical charge in the battery that never existed? The conduction current (amperes) came from the copper atoms of the wire outside the battery. The EMF attracts the electrons out of the outer electron field of the copper atoms, which are the most loosely bound toward the positive pole of the battery (Drude gas model - the most accurate and consistent model according to what we do know).

The DIPOLE of the battery caused by the polarized chemistry breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum - that is Bearden's terminology consistent with the quantum view but I dropped my quantum belief quite a while back like a hot bag of poison. In simple terms, it polarizes the aether that is in the vicinity of the poles of the battery terminals.

The voltage potential (first type of voltage - EMF being the 2nd) reading at the terminals is a gas pressure reading of the aether sitting there in a "static" state waiting for a path to lead it to a lower potential. As soon a you hook a circuit to it like a light bulb, that EMF flows over the surface of the wire like wave-guide at light speed towards the neutral terminal. The current induced to move as described above is the source of the current to light the bulb - if electrons are even really turning into light - we don't know but it is a model that will suffice for this example.

Again, about half of the potential is dissipated from the resistance of the load (work = energy) and the other half depolarizes the chemistry in the battery (loss = unintended work = still energy). As the chemistry moves toward equilibrium from this, the voltage reading goes down because there is less gas pressure of the polarized/symmetrical aether available at the terminal of the battery. The battery didn't lose one iota of "energy" "charge" or any other mystical and magical thing. It only got depolarized.

That is the nature of the dipole and every dipole operates the same way. Chemistry in your cells - sodium potassium pump, whatever - doesn't matter. There is no electrical charge intrinsic to any chemical. When one electron is transported here or there or an ion in a channel, etc. all those chemical reactions are simply creating, destroying and recreating dipoles that polarize the aether in their vicinity and that aether flows to the terminals of the chemistry and move just like the description above. 100% of every dipole is the same without exception.

That is where the EMF comes from (polarized aether). That EMF is also known as the Heaviside Flow and is estimated that only about 1 / 10 trillionths or 1 / 11 trillionths of it is attracted into the copper that pulls the electrons out of orbit to cause the conduction current in amps. Virtually none of it even gets used and is why it is accurate to say a AA batter or other small dipole has the potential to power an entire city or whatever. It's not that the potential is not there, it is that nobody knows how to tap all that potential and turn it into work by resisting it and having it manifest/create energy right on the spot.

Energy always is and only is created or destroyed since there is no such thing as energy. That EMF (polarized aether or Heaviside Flow) is the actual stuff, which is the noun meaning the POTENTIAL is the noun and is the thing. There is no such thing as energy because it is not a thing. Energy is a word to describe work, which is the ACTIVITY of organized potential encountering a resistance that dissipates it back to equilibrium in its active environment. When this happens, energy is created and destroyed simultaneously anywhere work is happening. That is why the entire concept of conservation of energy is for nitwits who are deluded with magical myths.

Now that we know the above, we can create circuits where we can create potential differences in novel ways that allow us to use this potential without killing the dipole. Lead acid batteries are open systems by the way, not closed. The chemistry has free interchange with the environment so what happens in the battery on a front end or back end may be related to each other, but being related does NOT mean it is automatically directly proportional and that is an indisputable fact.

John Bedini and Peter Lindemann demonstrated this many times at EnergenX and I witnessed it over and over right there throughout a couple million dollars worth of R & D show exactly what a battery really is and how it needs to be charged. Peter's demo on John's 10-coiler SSG ran on 24v golf cart batteries and charged a large 24v cell phone tower battery bank at a COP of a minimum of 5.0.

Peter drew 500% more work from that battery bank on the back end compared to the small amount that left the golf cart batteries, which is one of the most blatant in your face demonstrations of the importance of using as BIG of batteries as you can afford, which is what Turion has said for years. Any internal resistance in the battery massively dissipates the potential. Use large batteries and more of that potential in that EMF flow can actually get put to use by eliciting more chemical change in the battery (separation of internal "charges").

AND, with IMPULSES, which are sharp gradients that are known to violate conventional thermodynamics, those IMPULSES cause a sharp gradient at the battery terminals, which polarizes the aether in the space at the battery terminals and we're talking about terminals of a battery being charged. The polarized aether adds EMF that adds to additional polarization of the chemistry meaning the battery is "charging" more than just what enters the battery from the spikes, cap dumps, or other form of impulse. So that alone is a gain mechanism where the battery can wind up with more load powering capability than what entered the battery from the output of the circuit. Again, that battery is an open system so that winds up in the battery is related but NOT directly proportional to what you see in the circuit.

Anyone can measure the spikes from a simple Bedini SSG and see that it only registers at about 15-20% of what is leaving the input battery appearing to be very inefficient. Stooges like Milehigh and others have claimed that for years. However, that is always going to be a bogus test. The only honest test is that you wait until AFTER the battery is charged and then discharge at a 20 hour rating to see how many joule seconds you actually get out of it. And what does almost everyone see? 70-75% is easy and is considered bad performance and a junk build can get these results. 85% is pretty typical and really good results can be up to 95% with a large, quality SSG built. Yet 15-20% is what you measure when putting a meter to measure the spikes (which is always going to be inaccurate anyway). The best anyone can measure is always WAY UNDER what actually is measured from the battery in an honest draw down test with a constant current load. And this is with a simple SSG.

I've seen variations of what Turion has done by Peter and others and know what the results can show. What he is saying is valid and has been proven not just by him but John, Peter and others. Turion is doing it larger scale and is throwing some generator coils that DO offer reduced drag properties for equivalent output into the mix along with being able to neutralize the cogging effect. I don't see how anyone that is honest cannot understand the reality unless they are completely dedicated to deluding themselves.

[bistander]

Some of you are mentioning problems with post, if you can give specific details here, that would be appreciated - see the last sentence or two.

http://www.energeticforum.com/announ...tic-forum.html

Hi Aaron,

Thanks. But it is difficult to post and include screen shot. Most often I get message site cannot be reached.

When I switch off WiFi, I get one quick shot to post.

bi

[Turion]

Testing

If you use large capacitors, say 50 farad, and you get the ones that have their own meter showing EXACTLY what is in the capacitor, the test I described is simple. Charge one cap and put the two caps in parallel with the motor between the positives and run it until the caps equalize and the motor stops. LOOK at what is in each cap and add the two totals. It will show you exactly what I am talking about. Now if you do the SAME experiment with a modified Matt motor the results are even more dramatic because with a pulse motor there are two high voltage spikes that can be captured. One when the coil is charged and another when the coil collapses. In most motors these spikes are sent into the unused windings to dissipate. Matt’s motor sends them to the side that is being charged in the path of least resistance.

The Laws of thermodynamics apply to electrical circuits only in how they produce heat. In a nutshell, any device with movable parts produces friction that converts mechanical energy to heat that is generally unusable and must be removed from the system by transferring it to a heat sink. This is why claims for perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected by the U.S. Patent Office.

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase.

Now in electrical circuits, the energy flow is from the high concentration to the low. That’s what we WANT, because we can take advantage of that. That isn’t a “law” of thermodynamics unless you assume electricity is heat, since thermodynamics applies to hot and cold. Not to say that electricity never produces heat, because it can, but it, in itself, is NOT heat so the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to it.

But not an argument worth having. The first step MUST be understanding that nowhere NEAR as much energy is consumed by the load as we have been led to believe. Prove that one thing to yourself and you are on the path to free energy